Ports of MA Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
The Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum Number 4
Analysis of the Massachusetts
Port System
i
November 8, 2013 Revised Draft
Ports of MA Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
Table of Contents
Analysis of the Massachusetts Port System............................................................................................................................ 1
4.0
4.1
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.3
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.4
4.4.1
4.4.2
4.4.3
4.4.4
4.5
4.5.1
4.5.2
4.5.3
4.5.4
4.6
4.6.1
4.6.2
4.6.3
4.6.4
Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Compact-Wide Issues and Themes ................................................................................................................................ 2
Port Operations ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
Landside Access .................................................................................................................................................... 5
Institutional Context ................................................................................................................................................ 6
Boston ............................................................................................................................................................................. 7
Port Operations ...................................................................................................................................................... 7
Landside Access .................................................................................................................................................. 14
Institutional Context .............................................................................................................................................. 17
Issues Identified ................................................................................................................................................... 17
Fall River ....................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Port Operations .................................................................................................................................................... 19
Landside Access .................................................................................................................................................. 22
Institutional Context .............................................................................................................................................. 23
Issues Identified ................................................................................................................................................... 23
Gloucester ..................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Port Operations .................................................................................................................................................... 25
Landside Access .................................................................................................................................................. 29
Institutional Context .............................................................................................................................................. 29
Issues Identified ................................................................................................................................................... 31
New Bedford.................................................................................................................................................................. 32
Port Operations .................................................................................................................................................... 32
Landside Access .................................................................................................................................................. 39
Institutional Context .............................................................................................................................................. 40
Issues Identified ................................................................................................................................................... 40
Salem ............................................................................................................................................................................ 42
Port Operations .................................................................................................................................................... 42
Landside Access .................................................................................................................................................. 45
Institutional Context .............................................................................................................................................. 45
Issues Identified ................................................................................................................................................... 46
ii
November 8, 2013 Revised Draft
Ports of MA Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
List of Figures
Figure 1: Boston Study Area ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
Figure 2: Proposed Deep Draft Navigation Improvements ........................................................................................................... 8
Figure 3: South Boston Port Truck Routes ................................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 4: Fall River Study Area .................................................................................................................................................. 19
Figure 5: Fall River Central Waterfront ....................................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 6: Gloucester Study Area ................................................................................................................................................ 24
Figure 7: Gloucester "Three-Legged" Port Economic Strategy .................................................................................................. 28
Figure 8: New Bedford Study Area ............................................................................................................................................. 32
Figure 9: New Bedford State Pier ............................................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 10: Salem Study Area ..................................................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 11: Salem Power Station in Relation to Key Waterfront Sites ......................................................................................... 43
iii
November 8, 2013 Revised Draft
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
Analysis of the Massachusetts Port System
4.0 Introduction
The purpose of this Technical Memorandum # 4 is to evaluate the five ports of the Massachusetts Ports Compact
in terms of the markets they aspire to serve and their capabilities to do so. This Technical Memorandum provides
the context for the specific recommendations that will be developed in the next stage of the study.
This analysis builds on two prior Technical Memoranda: the Existing Conditions Report and the Analysis of Macro
Maritime Trends. The capability of a port relative to its market is the logical intersection of its existing attributes—
geographic, organizational, infrastructural, and commercial—and the global or regional trends in the markets in
which it hopes to compete. Where necessary to frame the discussion, information from these prior reports is
restated or summarized.
This document consists of six main sections, beginning with an overview of Compact-Wide Issues and Themes
and then turning to each of the five ports:
4.1
Compact-Wide Issues and Themes
4.2
Boston
4.3
Fall River
4.4
Gloucester
4.5
New Bedford
4.6
Salem
For each port, the analysis seeks to determine whether there are gaps, deficiencies, or unmet needs that must be
addressed if a viable market is to be served. Gaps or deficiencies often involve physical infrastructure, either on
the port side or the land side, but the need for marketing, business development, and capital formation for private
companies emerges as an important theme as well. So, in some cases, do institutional or regulatory issues.
In some instances, previously identified gaps or deficiencies are already being addressed. In others, a gap or
deficiency needs to be addressed in the near term. Some needs are long-term in nature and either cannot or
need not be addressed in the near term.
For each port, the wide array of issues that enter into this analysis is organized into three topical areas:
• Port Operations
• Landside Access
• Institutional Context.
The longest of these discussions is Port Operations, which examines the chain of marine logistics from channel
depth to dockage to terminal facilities. The discussion covers each of the business sectors that meaningfully apply
to the port in question:
• Cargo
• Passenger transportation
• Fishing and fish processing
• New technology sectors.
November 8, 2013 Draft
1
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
The ports are not treated uniformly, as if each were engaged in the full spectrum of business lines. Nor is any port
assumed, for the sake of a simple paradigm, to specialize in one thing. Where a port community has emphasized
a strategic market priority—the New Maritime Economy in Gloucester, offshore wind in New Bedford, cruises in
Salem, tourism in Fall River, container shipping in Boston—that is reflected in the discussion, but not to the
diminution of that port’s other maritime businesses. The actual role of each port in the local and regional
economy, and the realistic potential to expand that role, are paramount.
4.1 Compact-Wide Issues and Themes
4.1.1 Port Operations
4.1.1.1
Cargo
Of the five Compact Ports, two support major, multi-faceted cargo businesses:
• Boston has New England’s only dedicated container port, its principal automobile importing facility, a
regionally significant concentration of liquid bulk petroleum terminals, and a variety of bulk cargo operations.
• New Bedford is a regionally important center for the import of fruits and other perishables, and both ships
and receives liquid and dry bulk cargoes. New Bedford hopes to become a regional support center for the
offshore wind industry, including the handling of highly specialized project cargoes.
Salem’s only significant cargo activity is the import of coal and petroleum products to fuel specific power plants.
The same is currently true of the Port of Fall River, although it could potentially handle other forms of cargo.
Gloucester has no significant cargo operations (other than the receipt and shipment of frozen fish product).
Maintaining cargo operations and accommodating their future growth requires the proper combination of
navigational depth and clearance, terminal capacity, and landside access. On the navigation side, dredging is a
common issue in all five ports—particularly for cargo operations in Boston and New Bedford, but also for cruise
and recreational operations in the others. Dredging depths range from the 51 feet proposed for the North
Entrance Channel to Boston Harbor to accommodate the largest North Atlantic and Suez Canal container vessels
to the six feet needed in Salem’s South River Basin so that water taxis and recreational boat activity can be
introduced to the downtown.
Navigation in port areas also requires that waterways have sufficient vertical and lateral clearance. Usually this
issue involves conflicts with bridges, whose span between piers may be too narrow, or whose air draft beneath a
fixed span too low, to accommodate a given vessel size. One prime example, the Chelsea Street Bridge
Replacement, has eliminated a major lateral clearance issue in the Port of Boston, while a comparable hurdle
created by the Route 6 Bridge in New Bedford remains a barrier to an entire section of that port.
The effective capacity of cargo facilities reflects their size and composition, their state of good repair, and their
operating plan. This analysis focuses on the cargo facilities in Boston and New Bedford. In the former, Conley
Terminal is poised for a significant throughput capacity expansion as Massport evaluates global market trends
and their impact on the North Atlantic container ports. In the latter, State Pier, North Terminal, and South Terminal
each face distinct issues.
4.1.1.2
Passenger Transportation
This broadly defined area of port activity includes ocean cruises, ferries, commercial excursions, and, for some
purposes, private recreational boating. Based on the preliminary findings of this study, the commercial excursion
sector is operating “under the radar” in Gloucester and Salem and represents a major untapped opportunity in
New Bedford and Fall River. While the excursion sector lacks the higher profile of ocean cruise and ferries, and is
November 8, 2013 Draft
2
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
typically fragmented among a number of individual small businesses, its power to generate ridership, landside
spending, and employment is significant.
Cruises. Each of the five ports is seeking to establish, retain, or expand a permanent ocean cruise sector. This
sector varies in scale from the large ships and hundreds of thousands of annual passengers associated with
Cruiseport Boston to a range of mid-sized and smaller ships that visit the regional ports. And from an
infrastructure standpoint, each port has, or could readily have, the requisite berthing, terminal, and parking
facilities. What is clear from all five is that once basic infrastructure needs are met, the need for marketing is
paramount. Massport has its own marketing capabilities and can deploy them in concert with the Greater Boston
Convention and Visitors’ Bureau, and Massachusetts Convention Center Authority, and the Massachusetts Office
of Travel and Tourism (MOTT). For Gloucester, Salem, Fall River, and New Bedford, individual marketing is
necessary but not sufficient. A joint marketing strategy, perhaps through an enhanced, multi-year “Historic Ports
of Massachusetts” initiative led by MOTT, would help these regional ports compete with “Cruise Canada”, a wellfunded 10-port marketing consortium.
Ferries. Four of the Compact Ports have, or aspire to have, scheduled passenger ferry operations. Over the last
two decades, Boston has developed a robust ferry sector serving both commuter and cross-harbor routes, as well
as the ferry service to the Harbor Islands and seasonal ferries to Provincetown. New Bedford State Pier is home
to two ferry operations serving offshore islands—Martha’s Vineyard seasonally and Cuttyhunk year-round.
Salem’s Fast Ferry to Boston is the first phase of the City’s port expansion effort. Each of these cities hopes to
expand ferry service, and Fall River hopes to attract permanent ferry service to Newport and Block Island.
In 2012 MassDOT completed a study of Passenger Ferry Transportation in Massachusetts. It noted the need to
evaluate “the true longitudinal costs and benefits of water transportation prior to the expansion of any existing
services or facilities” and raised a number of strategic questions to be addressed as MassDOT and other public
agencies consider such investments. To help answer those questions, MassDOT recommended the creation of
what has become the Massachusetts Ferry Compact, of which Massport, Boston, Salem, and New Bedford are
members. 1 The Ferry Compact will make recommendations to MassDOT on the funding of specific ferry projects.
Commercial Recreational Vessels. These uses include whale watch, scheduled and unscheduled harbor
sightseeing and other cruises, parties, other social and business events, fishing and other charters, and, for most
purposes, scheduled service to recreational destinations like the Boston Harbor Islands. These uses, which are
referred to collectively in this Memorandum as “excursions”, are allowed within Designated Port Areas. They are
capable of attracting large volumes of passengers, including visitors from outside the local area as well as
residents, generating substantial economic benefits directly and indirectly within the local community. This occurs
mostly through on-shore visitor spending, but also through direct employment on the vessel and vessel
2
expenditures for provisioning, fuel, and maintenance.
In preparation for the 2008 Boston Harbor Water Transportation Summit, Save the Harbor/Save the Bay enlisted
knowledgeable professionals to survey the excursion sector in Boston and found a previously unquantified
business sector generating over one million paying passengers per year. For this current study, existing data
have been compiled on excursion operators in the other ports, showing a robust business in Gloucester and
Salem. However, because these excursion operators are individual small businesses, two steps are needed to
understand their current economic impacts and predict and accommodate their potential growth.
1
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/planning/Main/StatewidePlans/FerryCompact.aspx.
See, for example, The Contribution of Waterfront Land Uses to Municipal Revenues in Newport, Rhode Island, FXM Associates and the
University of Rhode Island Coastal Resources Center, August 2010. That study showed that two sightseeing excursion vessels in Newport
Harbor generated nearly twice as many passengers and nearly ten times as much spending in Newport than the 65,000 cruise ship
passengers hosted at the port. Research conducted for this current study showed that a single whale watch vessel in Gloucester, by way of
example, generated three times more passenger visitations (25,000) than the combined passengers of 22 cruise ship calls (8,000).
2
November 8, 2013 Draft
3
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
One is a systematic analysis in each port of passenger volumes, local spending, and docking, access, and
parking needs. The other is marketing, and unlike in the cruise sector, this marketing effort is inherently portspecific. Most of commercial recreational vessel operators cannot afford media advertising, and in any event, the
best image to convey to the public is that of a harbor alive with excursion opportunities.
Private Recreational Vessels. These include transient and seasonal private vessels that use slips and moorings
or other dockage within each harbor. Private recreational boaters make significant economic contributions to their
local economies. However, marinas for private recreational vessels are not an allowable use within a DPA, and
this is constraining their expansion potential. Each port identified the need to accommodate greater numbers of
large yachts and other transient boaters. While not always considered a “port use”, private recreational boating
has a significant impact in Boston and is a high-profile harbor planning issue in Gloucester, New Bedford, and
3
Salem. The potential use conflict between private recreational dockage and maritime industrial activities varies
among ports, and among DPA areas within ports.
4.1.1.3
Fishing and Fish Processing
Gloucester and New Bedford are fishing ports of national significance. In each city, both the fishing fleet and the
seafood processing industry are major employers with a highly visible presence in the Designated Port Area.
Boston retains a smaller but still meaningful fishing fleet, and Massport and the Boston Economic Development
and Industrial Commission are developing a modern fish processing industry within sight of the historic Fish Pier.
Detailed discussions of all three cities’ fishing and processing businesses can be found in the Existing Conditions
Report.
The management and regulation of commercial fisheries requires a complex balancing of sustainable fish stocks
for the future and economic viability for the present. The Department of Commerce declared the New England
groundfishery an “economic disaster” in 2012, and as this Memorandum is written the New England
Congressional delegation has been working to secure a FY2014 appropriation to fund disaster relief for fishermen
based on that declaration. NOAA has issued its 2013 groundfish allotments; and Attorney General Coakley has
filed suit seeking to have those allotments set aside. Fishing issues are of major concern in Gloucester and
Boston, while New Bedford’s fleet currently relies on the more stable scallop fishery.
Notwithstanding the groundfish collapse, Gloucester still shares with New Bedford and Boston a need for
modernized infrastructure. In Gloucester’s case, the large percentage of private ownership along the DPA
waterfront makes redevelopment to support fisheries more challenging. New Bedford, whose fleet relies primarily
on the abundant scallop stock, needs more commercial vessel berthing and may require a substantial capital
project to create it.
In all three ports, the separation between local fleet landings and the processing industry has continued to grow.
While fresh fish processors obtain much of their product from the local landed catch, frozen processors bring
product in from outside the region and ship it out by road and by air. This separation helps keep the processing
industry viable, but does not promote continuing investment in waterfront infrastructure.
4.1.1.4
New Technology Sectors
All of the ports are seeking to participate in technological innovation, both in their own operations and in the
businesses they support. That said, specific new technology sectors occupy prominent roles in the port
development strategies of New Bedford and Gloucester. In New Bedford, the opportunity to become the
3
In the Newport study cited above, recreational boaters spent about $40 million annually and accounted for over 25% of all restaurant, retail,
and hotel sales in the Newport harbor and downtown areas. Research conducted for this current study indicates that private recreation vessels
in the five Compact Ports generate over $72 million per year in direct spending, supporting over 700 jobs. The amount of spending by private
recreational vessel owners and guests at each port is estimated annually as follows: Boston, $22 million; Gloucester, $19 million; Salem, $15
million; New Bedford, $14 million; Fall River, $3 million (FXM Associates).
November 8, 2013 Draft
4
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
Commonwealth’s principal support base for the offshore wind industry has led to the development of a major new
cargo facility at South Terminal. In Gloucester, the opportunity to tap into the northeast’s multi-billion dollar Marine
Sciences and Technology cluster has led to City’s embrace of the “New Maritime Port Economy”, with aspirations
of attracting a critical mass of research and development. Each initiative requires a long-term strategy that
includes market development as well as physical infrastructure.
4.1.2 Landside Access
4.1.2.1
Highway
Massachusetts is largely a consumer state, where imports significantly outweigh exports. Since a large portion of
imports are destined for in-state consumption, freight entering the Compact Ports generally travels shorter
distances (100 miles or less) and relies on the highway network. On a tonnage basis, 87% of freight movement in
Massachusetts is by truck. As a result, the elimination of bottlenecks and the maintenance and improvement of
4
highway infrastructure accessing the ports is essential to their ability to accommodate future growth. This is most
applicable to Boston and New Bedford, the only ports with major cargo activity not involving fuel import for power
plant use directly at the terminal. However, Gloucester, Salem, and Fall River, whose ports are located in
congested downtown waterfronts, have landside access needs as well.
The Massachusetts State Freight Plan (2010) and the regional long range transportation plans produced by the
Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) (2011) and the Southeast Massachusetts MPO (2012)
recommend highway investments that are needed to reduce bottlenecks and meet future port growth. The funding
for these projects has not necessarily been identified, but should they not be funded, the growth of the Compact
Ports could be jeopardized. The specific highway access needs for each individual port are identified in the
chapters that follow. With the exception of Massport’s self-funded Dedicated Freight Corridor that will connect
Conley Terminal to the South Boston roadway network, these future projects will be competing for funds from
federal and state highway programs.
A discussion of surface transportation funding programs as they apply to the ports’ landside networks, and a
listing of highway and bridge projects funded or programmed in and around the five Compact Ports, is provided in
the Funding and Finance Report (Technical Memorandum #6). Some of these projects directly serve port areas
(for example, the Route 18/JFK Boulevard improvements in New Bedford). Others serve a city’s central
waterfront, including the port (like the I-195/Route 79/Route 138 interchange in Fall River, or the Route 6 Bridge
renovations in New Bedford and Fairhaven). Boston’s Chelsea Street Bridge Replacement was undertaken to
relieve a severe navigational constraint that the old bridge imposed on Chelsea Creek, a vital port waterway.
4.1.2.2
Rail
Rail is used for longer distance shipping, particularly for containers, heavier bulk commodities, and other non
time-sensitive goods. Rail offers savings over truck in terms of efficiency associated with capacity and improved
safety as well as reducing highway congestion, emissions, and pavement costs. However, on a tonnage basis,
the State Freight Plan (2010) indicates that only 6.5% of freight movement in Massachusetts is by rail, composed
largely of pulp/paper products, mixed shipments, chemicals, and waste/scrap commodities.
The ports of Boston, Fall River, and New Bedford are all accessible by rail; however, there are numerous rail
mobility issues facing each of them, including shared use with passenger service, weight limits, vertical
clearances, and speed limitations. Key rail links within the actual port areas do not yet exist: the extension of
Track 61 to the Massport Marine Terminal, the creation of passenger rail service to the Fall River and New
Bedford waterfronts; and the potential extension of the New Bedford port spur to South Terminal.
4
Massachusetts State Freight Plan, 2010.
November 8, 2013 Draft
5
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
The recent transaction between MassDOT and CSX, in which MassDOT acquired trackage and dispatch rights on
the CSX main line, the Fall River and New Bedford lines, and certain key segments in Boston, will allow some of
these issues to be addressed. In that same transaction, MassDOT’s program of creating second-generation
double-stack clearance on the CSX main line from Worcester westward was accelerated, a potential indirect
benefit to container growth in the Port of Boston.
4.1.3 Institutional Context
While navigation, facility, or landside access issues are usually identified as the primary hurdles to port
development, the institutional framework within which the ports operate can be a constraining factor as well. Two
institutional issues recur, to one degree or another, across the Compact Ports.
The Designated Port Area Structure. All five ports have DPAs, and except in Salem, the DPA constitutes most
5
of the study area and occupies a large share of the city’s central waterfront. The DPA program was created to
shield deepwater port properties from competing, non-maritime development pressures, with the understanding
that there would inevitably be tension over land use decisions. The five ports have had different experiences with
the DPA program. Massport and the City of Boston, with the largest DPA coverage, have organized their planning
around it. The state-approved Designated Port Master Plans in New Bedford, Gloucester, and Salem contain
provisions that tailor the DPA regulations to better reflect local conditions and goals. The City of Fall River has
urged that the designation be reevaluated, at least for the Central Waterfront/State Pier area.
Ownership and Control of Port Facilities. The five ports differ widely in their organizational structures. Only
Boston has a port entity with extensive ownership and control of port facilities and the ability to fund their
operating and capital programs; even so, if must be remembered that important sections of the Port of Boston lie
outside Massport’s jurisdiction.
Of the other ports, only New Bedford, with its Harbor Development Commission, has an entity with comparable
physical breadth, although HDC does not own the facilities it manages and its does not have independent
financial powers comparable to those of Massport. Gloucester, Salem, and Fall River do not have unified port
entities and manage port activities through their planning and development departments and their Harbormasters.
The implications of these structures are addressed in the respective port sections.
The Commonwealth has not created (nor has it been urged to create) an entity to “govern” a multi-port system.
The Seaport Advisory Council, which includes all five Compact Ports, is advisory, although it has primary input on
the expenditure of Seaport Bond Bill funds.
A specific form of Commonwealth ownership that extends through three of the Compact Ports involves the State
Piers in Gloucester, New Bedford, and Fall River. These (and State Piers in other municipalities that have them)
are owned on behalf of the Commonwealth by the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), as
successor to the former Department of Environmental Management. 6 In each of the three ports, a different
management structure has evolved, viewed differently by the respective cities
• MassDevelopment manages the Gloucester State Pier on behalf of DCR.
• The New Bedford Harbor Development Commission manages portions of the New Bedford State Pier under
contract with DCR.
• The Fall River State Pier is leased from DCR and managed by the non-profit Fall River Line Pier, Inc.
5
The Gloucester study area includes the entire Annisquam River waterway, which is larger in area than the Gloucester Harbor. Within the
Harbor, the DPA is almost all-inclusive.
6
The ownership of the piers by a succession of state environmental management agencies is the legacy of the original Waterways Division of
the Department of Public Works; the successor of the latter is MassDOT.
November 8, 2013 Draft
6
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
4.2 Boston
Figure 1: Boston Study Area
4.2.1 Port Operations
4.2.1.1
Cargo
Containers. Massport’s top strategic question with respect to the Port of Boston is the future of the container
business at Conley Terminal. Boston is the closest US port to Europe and relatively well positioned with respect to
Suez shipping; it is at a disadvantage, in distance alone, with respect to the Panama Canal, whose expansion will
November 8, 2013 Draft
7
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
7
be completed in 2015. Conley’s target markets, and its ability to compete in them long-term, depend on the
combination of channel depth, terminal capacity, and cost.
As noted in the Existing Conditions Report, the ship channels serving Conley are currently 40 feet deep and its
berths are 45 feet deep. The Deep Draft Navigation Improvement Project proposed by Massport, which is
currently concluding the MEPA/NEPA process and has been approved by the Army Corps of Engineers to begin
design, would deepen the Main Ship Channel, Conley Turning Basin, and Lower Reserved Channel (where the
Conley berths are located) to 47 feet, and the harbor’s North Entrance Channel to 51 feet. At a total estimated
cost of $305 million and a non-federal share of some $93 million, this project, if implemented, would be a
8
signature investment by Massport and other contributing stakeholders.
Figure 2: Proposed Deep Draft Navigation Improvements
Source: Massport and Army Corps of Engineers
To accept the even larger “Neo-Panamax” (post-2015) vessels under all tidal conditions would require a dredge
depth of 50 feet in the Main Ship Channel and Reserved Channel. Because of other limiting factors—air draft,
lack of rail, and distance from Panama—it is doubtful that Conley could compete for the direct call Neo-Panamax
trade, which is expected to gravitate to the East Coast’s large “load center” ports with on-dock access to the
national second-generation double-stack rail system. The purpose of implementing the Deep Draft Navigation
Improvement Project is not primarily to compete for Neo-Panamax, but to retain and expand the North Atlantic,
Mediterranean, and Suez markets.
In 2008, Massport completed a capacity analysis of Conley Terminal, with results that remain instructive today.
Terminal capacity is dependent on three primary inputs: ship to shore crane capacity, yard capacity, and gate
7
A vessel traveling the 3,243 miles from Amsterdam to Boston at 10 knots will take 13.5 days, whereas the same vessel will travel 3,575 miles
to Norfolk and take 14.9 days. By contrast, between Colón, Panama and Boston the voyage of 2,136 miles will take 8.9 days at 10 knots, as
opposed to the shorter voyage to Norfolk of 1,781 miles over 7.4 days
8
About 90% of the project cost is represented by the Main Ship Channel, Lower Reserved Channel/Conley, and North Entrance Channel
improvements. The remaining 10% covers extending the 47-foot depth to Massport Marine Terminal to accommodate bulk cargo activity,
deepening Chelsea Creek for liquid bulk shipments, and deepening a portion of the Mystic River berthing area at Massport’s Medford Street
Terminal, as described in later sections. Massport and New England District, Army Corps of Engineers Technical Working Group Meeting
Minutes, July 9, 2013.
November 8, 2013 Draft
8
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
capacity. The analysis of the existing conditions at the terminal indicated that the terminal capacity was 344,000
TEU. The 2008 study also investigated potential expansion of the terminal and modifications to the container yard
handling operations that would increase terminal capacity. Terminal modifications included revising the layout and
yard handling equipment, as well as expansion into the adjacent 30-acre Coastal Oil property, which Massport
acquired in 2008.
A limiting factor with respect to both crane capacity and vessel size is air draft. Conley’s location barely a mile
south of Logan Runways 4L and 4R limits the height of the dock cranes to 135 feet, which in turn limits the
maximum height of vessels calling there. Operators are already concerned about this height restriction, which will
only get worse as vessels get larger. One of the potential long-term benefits of the Coastal expansion is the
development of a new 1,200-foot berth at the far western end of the combined property, with less stringent height
9
limitations.
Improvements on the existing 101-acre footprint of Conley Terminal could increase its capacity to over 600,000
TEU, and expansion into the Coastal property could increase capacity of the terminal to over 800,000 TEU.
Massport currently projects volumes of up to 450,000 TEUs by 2022 if strong economic growth occurs, and the
Environmental Notification Form for the Conley Dedicated Freight Corridor (see the Land Access discussion
10
below) uses 500,000 TEU as a future assumption. Considering an actual throughput of 187,000 TEU in 2012,
Conley Terminal, with the Coastal Oil expansion programmed, will have more than sufficient terminal capacity to
handle a substantial expansion in volume.
The terminal improvements are also aimed at productivity. Because shippers only generate income on their
vessels when they are moving, an important cost factor is the time it takes to turn a vessel around so it can leave
port. An industry standard, and one used by Massport, is 30 container moves per hour per crane. In FY 2013, the
productivity of cranes has been as low as 25.7 moves per hour.
rd
11
Significance. Conley was the 33 busiest North American container port in 2011 by TEUs. Its impact on the
New England economy is substantial, representing the core of the $2.4 billion economic impact and 34,000 jobs
12
generated by Massport’s overall port facilities. Conley handles approximately 30% of all New England
waterborne cargo and is New England’s only dedicated container facility. If Greater Boston and the larger multistate region are to remain in the container business, Conley is essential.
As part of its own Strategic Plan, Massport is conducting a new analysis of container demand under a number of
global market scenarios. Adequate channel depth is necessary to compete in those global direct call markets for
which Conley’s location, air draft, and other geographic attributes are well suited. The Deep Draft Navigation
Improvements are intended to help retain existing volume and attract more. The cost-benefit analysis required to
justify all Corps dredging projects found that at the proposed depths, the benefit-to-cost ratio of the overall project
is 7.2 to 1, and of the Main Ship Channel/Conley-related improvements alone 8.03. Deepening is expected to
divert at least 30% of eastern New England-bound cargo currently landed at New York-New Jersey and trucked
up I-95 and I-84 to the Port of Boston, saving the cost of overland transportation for containerized cargo.
13
Expanding terminal capacity, through equipment and system improvements and the expansion into Coastal Oil,
would address both the global direct call business and Conley’s ability to participate robustly in coastal shipping.
With overall container volume growing on the East Coast, increased coastal shipping—whether in the short-sea,
9
MassDOT, Massachusetts Freight Plan, 2010; p, 2.102, citing Massport.
http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/mepadocs/2013/052213em/nps/enf/15053.pdf
11
http://aapa.files.cmsplus.com/PDFs/NORTH%20AMERICA%20PORT%20CONTAINER%20TRAFFIC%20RANKING%202011_1361895265064_1.pdf.
12
Estimated in 2006, as part of the Authority’s most recent economic impact report.
13
Massport and New England District, Army Corps of Engineers, Technical Working Group, July 2013 Update.
10
November 8, 2013 Draft
9
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
hub-and-spoke, or Marine Highway configuration—is a potential complement to Conley’s direct call business. This
increase would have to come from cargo destined for the Boston Metropolitan area; if cargo must travel further by
truck from Boston, it is more economical to truck from New York-New Jersey directly than to transship from New
York to Boston and then continue by truck to the final destination. Massport has estimated that 75-90% of marine
14
shipments into Conley are destined for locations within 100 miles of the port, mostly for the metropolitan region.
Every container that comes by water via Conley, rather than on I-95 or I-84 after landing in New Jersey, arrives at
its destination more economically and at less indirect cost to the New England economy.
Liquid Bulk. The liquid bulk cargo industry in Boston, critical to the regional economy, is primarily located on
Chelsea Creek and on the Mystic River. The petroleum and LNG terminals up-river of the Tobin Bridge are
subject to its 135-foot air draft restriction. Chelsea Creek has potential constraints related to both channel depth
and lateral clearance. Current channel depth is 38 feet, which would be increased to 40 as part of the proposed
Deep Draft Navigation Improvement project. There are two bridges spanning the Chelsea Creek channel. The
Andrew McArdle (Meridian Street) Bridge, a movable bascule at the waterway’s entrance, has a lateral clearance
of 175 feet. Up-river, the recently completed Chelsea Street Bridge Replacement created a 175-foot air draft and
a 450-foot lift span, in which the channel has been widened to 175 feet, matching the McArdle. The old bridge had
15
a horizontal clearance of just 96 feet. This $125 million project has eliminated a major navigation constraint.
Significance. Liquid bulk petroleum product imports via Chelsea Creek and the Mystic River represent the largest
share of cargo tonnage by far in the Port of Boston and the most important segment of port activity outside of
Massport jurisdiction. In 2011, these imports represented 41% of New England’s petroleum product consumption,
16
and 66% of the distillate oil, 79% of the gasoline, and 100% of the jet fuel consumed in Massachusetts. The
Chelsea Creek portion of this product flow (including much of the oil and gasoline and all of the jet fuel) depends
on the lateral clearance of the waterway, which has been resolved, and its depth. The cost-benefit analysis for the
17
Deep Draft Navigation Improvement shows a positive ratio of 2.7 to 1 for the Chelsea Creek component.
Mystic River Terminals. Boston Autoport is a 64-acre deepwater terminal on the Mystic River. Leased to a
private operator (Diversified Auto), Autoport handled nearly 40,000 cars in 2012. It can also accommodate
occasional or special cargoes, such as wind turbine components. Adjoining the Autoport and included in its lease
is the Medford Street Terminal—a 14-acre site consisting of the old Revere Sugar and Somerville Lumber
wharves and their backlands. The Deep Draft Navigation Improvement Project would deepen the portion of the
Mystic River Channel serving Autoport and Medford Street from 35 feet to 40 feet.
Significance. Massport has already made a long-term investment in assembling and holding its Mystic River
properties. The Revere Sugar and Somerville Lumber facilities were purchased nearly 30 years ago to preserve
them for maritime use. Through the Port Optimization Program of the 1990s, Massport freed up what is now the
Autoport by consolidating the container business into Conley. And in 2005, Massport acquired the Mystic Wharf
Branch Railroad (see the Rail section below) to preserve it for future rail use. Today, the Medford Street Terminal
is used for school bus parking and other non-maritime, temporary uses. Determining a viable long-term use for
the Medford Street properties, and the optimal mix of uses for Autoport, is a strategic question yet to be
determined.
Boston Marine Industrial Park and Massport Marine Terminal. The Boston Marine Industrial Park (BMIP) is a
191-acre site owned by the Boston Economic Industrial Corporation, (EDIC), a division of the Boston
Redevelopment Authority. The Massport Marine Terminal (MMT) is a 40-acre site within BMIP, which Massport
14
MassDOT, Massachusetts Freight Plan, 2010; p. ES-16.
http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/ProjectInfo/Main.asp?ACTION=BridgeInfo&BRIDGE_NO=B16019;
http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/default.asp?pgid=content/projectsRoot&sid=wrapper&iid=http://www.mhd.state.ma.us//ProjectInfo/
16
Massport, Port of Boston, 2012.
17
Massport and New England District, Army Corps of Engineers, Technical Working Group, July 2013 Update.
15
November 8, 2013 Draft
10
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
holds under a 75-year ground lease from BMIP. The combined BMIP/MMT property is included in the South
Boston DPA as well as the City’s Maritime Economic Reserve Zoning district and is dedicated primarily to bulk
and breakbulk cargo, seafood processing (the modern processing facilities described in section 4.2.3.1 below),
ship repair, and general maritime industry.
The EDIC-controlled area is governed by its 1999 Marine Industrial Park Master Plan, a tool which, under with the
DPA Regulations, allows a portion of the site to be used for general industrial purposes. In the Massport Marine
Terminal section of the property, Massport’s designated developer, Cargo Ventures, Inc., is preparing to build the
second phase of a 470,000 square-foot, multi-phase breakbulk cargo and cold storage facility served by the North
Jetty deep water berth.
Significance. This combined EDIC-Massport effort is responsible for keeping a large portion of the South Boston
Waterfront in port-related uses, following the closure of two major US military installations. EDIC assembled the
land and watersheet that became the BMIP, purchasing the 167-acre South Boston Naval Annex in 1977 and a
24-acre portion of the South Boston Army Base in 1983. The long-term lease of a portion of the site to Massport
followed, enabling Massport to fill in a series of finger piers and create the North Jetty/Massport Marine Terminal.
To date, this public-private investment has created over 3 million square feet of commercial-industrial space in
both new and rehabilitated buildings that now support over 250 businesses, employing approximately 3,500
people. BMIP is Boston's largest expanse of contiguous industrial land. Long range plans call for an additional 1.6
million square feet of leasable space supported by new and improved roadway and utility infrastructure, marine
infrastructure and future direct rail access. 18
4.2.1.2
Passenger Transportation
Cruises. Massport’s cruise business at Cruiseport Boston/Black Falcon has grown in less than three decades
from a negligible 13 vessels and 11,723 passengers in 1986 to 117 vessels (from nearly 20 cruise lines) and
19
380,000 passengers in 2012—a record for the port and a 23% increase over 2011. Black Falcon has access to
3600 feet of continuous berth space, and with multiple lines calling the port, on some days of the year three ships
20
of varying sizes, and on rare occasions four, are berthed simultaneously. The recent spurt of growth was
supported by rising gas prices and high airfares to Florida, and accommodated by Massport’s $11 million
renovation of Black Falcon in 2010, which nearly doubled the finished area available for passenger use and
created separate processing areas for embarking and disembarking passengers.
Since repeat business is an important part of the cruise market, the growth pattern may be expected to continue,
if the facilities and marketing effort are commensurate with the opportunity. Thanks to the recent improvements,
the Cruiseport Boston facilities are adequate for the current size of ships and volume of traffic. However,
21
Massport has identified a potential long-term need for a second terminal at Black Falcon, for two reasons. First,
if volume continues to grow at a sustainable, long-term rate, a second terminal would eventually be needed.
Moreover, vessel sizes continue to grow as well. The 3,000-passenger vessel threshold has been passed; Royal
Caribbean’s Freedom Class vessels have a capacity of nearly 4,400 passengers and the newer Oasis Class
22
vessels, the largest in operation, have a standard capacity of 5,400.
A major potential issue for Boston and other North and Mid-Atlantic cruise ports is the new Emission Control Area
(ECA) regulations promulgated by EPA and taking full effect on January 1, 2015. Carnival Cruises has announced
that its Carnival Glory will change its homeport from Boston and Norfolk to Miami in December 2013, as part of an
18
http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/planning/waterfront-planning/boston-marine-industrial-park/
Massport, Cruiseport Boston 2013 Fact Sheet.
20
Discussion with Michael Meyran, Massport.
21
Massport, Port of Boston, 2012; Maritime Department Strategic Analysis, 2013.
22
Florida’s Cruise Industry: A Statewide Perspective, June 2013.
19
November 8, 2013 Draft
11
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
23
ECA-related repositioning away from Baltimore, Norfolk, and Boston. To comply with ECA, Massport and its
cruise lines are evaluating the provision of on-shore power at Black Falcon as well as other solutions such as
24
seawater scrubbers and the use of cleaner fuel.
Because roughly half of Black Falcon’s business consists of homeport cruises, parking and circulation represent
another key aspect of the Cruiseport facility. Black Falcon has a major advantage in its proximity and ease of
transfer to and from Logan Airport. That said, with higher airfares and gas prices, passengers increasingly have
been seeking cruises that leave from ports closer to home. Approximately 85% of Black Falcon passengers
boarding cruises to Bermuda or the Caribbean live within a five-hour drive of the terminal. Passengers boarding
Canada/New England cruises are more likely to fly to Boston; however, 30% still arrive at the port by other
25
means, including driving, transit, intercity bus, or taxi.
Parking for Black Falcon is located in a five-story garage owned by the City of Boston within the adjacent Boston
Marine Industrial Park. When this facility reaches capacity, neighboring overflow lots are utilized. With homeport
volumes growing, the City is in the early stages of evaluating a parking expansion near the terminal. Since the
existing garage, the potential expansion garage, and Black Falcon Avenue, which runs the length of the pier on
26
the land side of the terminal, are all owned by the City, coordination will become more essential.
Significance. Massachusetts is one of the top ten states in economic impact from the cruise industry. 27 The ocean
cruise business has become a significant contributor to Boston’s larger tourist economy. The strategic outlook
rests on future market behavior as well as actions by Massport and its fellow Boston stakeholders. Will demand
grow sustainably, or will changes in the relative costs of gasoline, air travel, and cruise travel cause growth to
level off? Will the roughly even split between homeport and port of call business persist? Can Black Falcon,
despite its physical location, be integrated through marketing and seamless ground connections with the Seaport
District and downtown waterfronts? Fortunately, the physical space required for a major long-term expansion—
that is, the unimproved remainder of the old Army warehouse building whose finished section houses Black
Falcon—is in Massport’s hands today, assuming successful long-term collaboration with the City on parking and
circulation.
Ferries and Commercial Recreational Vessels. As described in the Existing Conditions Report, Boston, alone
among the five Compact Ports, has a major commuter ferry system; managed by the MBTA, it carried 1.3 million
28
passengers in 2011. The recreational or excursion cruise market in Boston is also significant, carrying 1.1
million passengers in 2007 (data compiled for 2008 Water Transportation Summit) and believed to have grown
29
somewhat since then. A third market, involving some of the same private operators, is the scheduled ferry
service to the Boston Harbor Islands, which shares some of the client and spending characteristics of commercial
excursions. These three overlapping sectors share the downtown ferry terminals at Long and Rowe’s Wharves,
23
http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=5406. ECA is a 200-nautical mile border around the US and Canadian coasts set up by the
International Maritime Organization in association with the in Environmental Protection Agency in August 2012. Currently, all ships operating in
the ECA zone must use fuel containing no more than 1.0 percent sulfur, but by January 1, 2015, ships must use fuel containing less than 0.1
percent sulfur. Because ECA zone narrows as it rounds Florida, ships operating out of Miami and other South Florida ports spend less time in
the zone and face significantly lower compliance costs.
24
Discussion with Michael Meyran, Massport. On-shore power represents an expense to both the port and the vessels, which must be retrofit
to use it, and its cost reflects the area cost of electric power. Moreover, the vessel’s time at the berth is only a portion of its time within the ECA
zone, during which it must either switch to low-sulfur fuel or use scrubber technology.
25
Massport, “2013 Cruiseport Boston Fact Sheet.
26
Discussion with Andrew Hargens, Massport.
27
Massport, Cruiseport Boston 2013 Fact Sheet. According to a 2012 report by the Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA), cruise
industry spending generated nearly 7,500 jobs and $438 million in income for Massachusetts’ workers through direct, indirect, and induced
impact in 2011. Furthermore, the report estimated that passengers and crew spent $24.8 million in Boston in 2011. Even if a more
conservative estimation methodology were used, by any measure the economic impact is substantial.
28
Passenger Ferry Transportation in Massachusetts, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, October 2012.
29
2008 Water Transportation Summit.
November 8, 2013 Draft
12
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
and, to a lesser extent, the terminal facilities at Commonwealth Pier. The issue, assuming potential growth in all
three businesses, is the adequacy of dockage space.
Significance. The excursion business as defined here—whale watches, sightseeing, dinner cruises, charter
fishing, and so forth—is a high-impact contributor to the Greater Boston economy. The analysis in the Existing
Conditions Report estimated over 600 direct jobs and $200-300 million in annual spending by residents and
30
visitors when engaged in these activities. Like the ocean cruise sector, but with three times as many annual
passengers, the excursion business is woven into the fabric of Boston’s tourism economy, and its growth is less
dependent on global conditions.
Coordinated planning for the ferry and excursion sectors is challenging because of the proliferation of direct
stakeholders—the Boston Redevelopment Authority, Massport, the MBTA, the Islands Alliance, the several
private operators, and owners of other waterfront properties where berthing or layover could be accommodated.
Better coordination would result in common signage, way-finding, and one-stop access to the various ferry and
excursion websites; both MassDOT and The Boston Harbor Association, a non-profit planning and advocacy
organization, have worked to advance these near-term goals. In the longer term, coordination of dock space and
decisions on where and how to expand the supply will require input from MassDOT, the BRA, and the state
31
agencies that administer the tidelands licensing program.
4.2.1.3
Fishing and Fish Processing
Massport owns and operates the Boston Fish Pier, home to the Boston fishing fleet and the oldest continuously
operating seafood processing facility in the US. Several of Massport’s 13 fish processor tenants are located on
the first level of the Fish Pier, and their leases all terminate in 2029. In the mid- to long term, the Fish Pier will
need costly renovations to be code-compliant, and the dimensions of the individual tenant spaces as currently
32
constituted would not support modern operations. Consequently, Massport and the City of Boston are
developing an expanded and modernized processing industry on their nearby lands in the Massport Marine
Terminal and the Boston Marine Industrial Park, as described more fully in the Existing Conditions Report.
While Boston’s frozen fish processors do not obtain the majority of their product from Boston’s fishing fleet, the
nexus between fresh fish processing and local landings is potentially important. The City’s ability to maintain an
active fleet of meaningful size and economic impact in proximity to the processor base will depend on the
condition of the Fish Pier and the complexity and cost of modernizing it. The recent installation of clean shore
power at all 18 vessel berths to avoid on-board engine use while docked was one of many needed
33
improvements.
Significance. Boston remains a significant fishing port, as it has been since colonial times. Although not at the
34
level of Gloucester or New Bedford, Boston’s seafood processing industry employs 270 people. The Fish Pier
occupies a dual role—as home to the fleet and several processors, but also as the symbol of the industry in
Boston and a locus where residents and tourists can observe the working port at close range, due to the on-pier
restaurants and the facility’s highly visible location at Northern Avenue and D Street. As the “hinge” between the
working port and the mixed-use Seaport District and part of the Designated Port Area, the Fish Pier has
regulatory protection as well as marketing value.
30
Nielsen Site Reports and Massachusetts Department of Labor for the jobs estimate and 2008 Boston Water Transportation Summit data,
growth-adjusted, for spending.
31
The Department of Environmental Protection and MEPA; Chapter 91 licenses in Boston Harbor often require either construction of dock
space or contribution to such facilities off-site.
32
Massport, Port of Boston, 2012; Maritime Department Strategic Analysis, 2013.
33
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/6d651d23f5a91b768525735900400c28/7ec82cb59ea5abd68525756900722d39!OpenDocument
34
Employment and wage data: ES-202 Employment and Wages Database, Massachusetts Executive Office of Labor and Workforce
Development, 2012.
November 8, 2013 Draft
13
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
4.2.2 Landside Access
4.2.2.1
Highway
Truck access to the Port of Boston is critical, particularly in South Boston where the principal concentration of
truck trip-generating facilities is located. The South Boston waterfront enjoys direct access to the interstate and
regional highway system. A semi-dedicated truck route system, consisting principally of the Massport Haul Road
and the South Boston Bypass Road, connects the South Boston port area to I-90 westbound, I-93 north- and
southbound, and the Ted Williams Tunnel. The Massachusetts State Freight Plan identifies regional truck freight
35
bottlenecks in Greater Boston, and the port area is not among them.
In order to get to the Haul Road/Bypass Road system, trucks must use local streets, and trucks not bound for the
Haul Road/Bypass Road system use local streets exclusively. As a result, truck traffic to and from the port
facilities competes with commercial and residential traffic.
As mixed-use development accelerates in the South Boston Seaport District, traffic congestion is materializing
36
sooner than expected, despite the district’s heavy reliance on transit and pedestrian access. The district
currently has some 30 million square feet of development built or permitted. The 2000 South Boston
Transportation Study projected than when 31 million square feet are fully occupied, the existing transportation
network, including both the street system and the Silver Line bus rapid transit connection to South Station, will
exceed its capacity—a threshold which the 2000 Plan estimated would be reached in 2025. Moreover, the
planned development capacity of the Seaport District exceeds the 31 million square feet by at least an additional
37
seven million. A working group including Massport, MassDOT, the MBTA, the City, the Convention Center
Authority, and A Better City is in the process of initiating a new South Boston Transportation Plan, which will
assess short-, medium-, and long-term alternatives involving local streets, the Silver Line, water transportation,
38
and the Haul Road/Bypass Road system.
One key constraint is on the way to being resolved: the truck route into and out of Conley Terminal. Today trucks
use East First Street, creating noise impacts on nearby residences and congestion impacts at the intersections of
East First with Summer Street and Farragut Road. To address these conflicts and accommodate future growth,
Massport is preparing to build, starting in 2014, a 3,100-foot long Dedicated Freight Corridor from Conley to a new
intersection with Summer Street, close to an entrance to the Massport Haul Road. This project, which will
separate truck traffic from the adjoining residential neighborhood by means of a green buffer, is a precondition to
implementing Massport’s Coastal Oil expansion. It is projected to carry approximately 2,900 daily trips (almost all
39
of them container trucks), compared to approximately 1,200 on East First Street today. This project will provide
sufficient landside access in and out of Conley to handle all of its foreseeable growth—provided the local street
network and the Haul Road/Bypass Road are managed to accommodate that flow.
However, the Dedicated Freight Corridor serves only Conley and is only part of the puzzle. A series of additional
improvements identified by Massport and the other South Boston stakeholders require funding and
implementation; these would:
• Provide enhanced connections between Summer Street and the Massport Haul Road;
35
MassDOT, Massachusetts Freight Plan, 2010; p. 2-37 ff.
The term “South Boston Seaport District” (also called the “Innovation District”) refers to the area west of the port facilities and east of Fort
Point Channel, including the Convention Center. The district has been master planned for large-scale mixed-use development with a heavy
transit orientation. The latter rests on the Silver Line Waterfront (in service since 2005) and on the 1993 Parking Freeze limiting off-street
parking to the then-existing supply plus a 10% cushion. The Silver Line III project, which would have extended the Silver Line subway from
South Station to the connection with the Orange and Green Lines, was suspended in 2009 for lack of funding.
37
City of Boston with Massport, South Boston Transportation Study, 2000; p. 3.
38
This emerging issue was the subject of a recent Boston Globe story: http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/08/15/seaport-districtfaces-gridlock-development-outpaces-its-transportation-plan/V213FxpY9dmLGtAwQmkQGP/story.html
39
http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/mepadocs/2013/052213em/nps/enf/15053.pdf
36
November 8, 2013 Draft
14
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
• Reconstruct E Street to become the primary north-south truck route for the industrial area south of Summer
Street, connecting via Cypher Street to the South Boston Bypass Road.
40
Figure 3: South Boston Port Truck Routes
Source: Massport
An emerging bottleneck affecting both traffic and transit is the intersection of D Street and the Silver Line, where
the latter comes to grade between World Trade and Silver Line Way stations. D Street is a key multi-use arterial
terminating at the Fish Pier, and the Silver Line is indispensible to the buildout of the Seaport District and the
Marine Industrial Park. The future grade-separation of these two corridors, known as “T under D”, is built into the
design of Massport’s “Core Block” (the joint development site that encompasses World Trade Center Station) and
will likely need to be implemented, through cooperative action by the MBTA, Massport, and the City, in the
foreseeable future.
Significance. The assurance of a balanced, long-term landside transportation network in South Boston is
strategically important to the Port of Boston for two reasons. First, the port facilities depend on truck access;
ocean containers or truckloads of frozen fish have no transit or pedestrian alternative. As roadway capacity is
absorbed by mixed-use development, Massport and the City are planning for growth in the container, cruise,
seafood processing, and general cargo sectors.
Second, Massport itself is the largest mixed-use land owner in the Seaport District. Its 60-acre Commonwealth
Flats Development Area is programmed for nearly eight million square feet of existing and planned
41
development. While this real estate is not part of the port in a functional sense, it is critical in an economic sense
because its net revenues flow to Massport’s Maritime Department. In 2012, the Maritime Department’s
commercial real estate properties generated a net operating income of $5.8 million, mostly from Commonwealth
Flats—the difference between the Maritime Department breaking even on the operations side or running a
42
deficit. The long-term viability of this real estate portfolio depends on the roadway and transit network in which it
is located.
40
MassDOT, Massachusetts Freight Plan, 2010. The Freight Plan also notes that highway weight restrictions in Boston are a major concern
for trucking companies and their shippers because they impede the efficient movement of goods into and out of the Port. When containers or
loads exceed local and state weight restrictions, shippers must reconfigure their loads to lower weights or travel circuitous routes. The
inclusion of additional dedicated truck routes or more appropriate overweight routes would improve freight operations and reduce costs. This
issue is of city- and region-wide scope; the dedicated truck routes in South Boston are able to accommodate full container and bulk loads.
41
http://www.massport.com/news-room/News/RequestForQualificationsExpressionsOfInterest.aspx. The 60 acres includes Commonwealth
Flats (with seven million square feet of development built or approved) and Commonwealth Pier, with 850,000 square feet of adaptive reuse in
place.
42
Massport 2013 Consolidated Annual Financial Report, p.36.
November 8, 2013 Draft
15
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
4.2.2.2
Technical Memorandum #4
Rail
The Port of Boston is served by two major freight rail lines: the CSX Boston Line and the Pan Am Railways (PAR)
Main Line. The Boston Line connects Boston to the major CSX classification yard and junction in Selkirk, NY. The
PAR Main Line connects Boston with Albany, NY and is an important rail link for the paper and lumber industries
in northern New England and Canada.
The 2010 State Freight Plan reflects Massport’s view, and that of the industry, that due to the Port of Boston’s
primary focus on freight destined for local and regional markets, highway infrastructure needs take priority over
direct on-dock rail access at the port. While Massachusetts and its Class I railroads have invested in double-stack
rail clearance for containers, double-stack does not and will not reach Boston. Conley containers bound for the
national double-stack rail network are trucked to inland yards where the intermodal transfer occurs.
A state-wide freight initiative of benefit to the Port of Boston is the MassDOT/CSX Double Stack Initiative and
Intermodal Investment. As part of MassDOT’s 2010 acquisition of trackage and other rights from CSX, MassDOT
and CSX are implementing second-generation double-stack clearance across Massachusetts, as far east as
Worcester, by modifying 31 bridges along the main line. CSX is upgrading its intermodal facilities in Worcester,
43
shifting container intermodal operations away from Beacon Park Yard in Allston. While Conley containers must
travel further by truck, they gain access to the national second-generation double-stack system.
While on-dock rail access for containers is not a consideration, the development of bulk cargo handling and cold
storage at the Massport Marine Terminal and Boston Marine Industrial Park has created an opportunity to
implement on-dock rail through the extension and reactivation of Track 61, a CSX spur preserved through the
Artery-Tunnel project and now owned by Massport. The Track 61 improvement, which involves the rehabilitation
of 2,860 linear feet of track and the construction of 5,910 linear feet of new track, could handle up to 6,000 rail
44
carloads per year and is strongly supported by both Massport and the City. The Massachusetts Freight Plan
includes the Track 61 project as part of a cost-effective Boston Core Multi-Modal Freight Improvements Scenario
45
and estimates that it would carry 2,070 carloads annually by 2035.
Massport also owns the rail corridor that formerly served the Autoport and Medford Street Terminals in
Charlestown. Massport acquired the Mystic Wharf Branch Railroad in 2005 to preserve it for future rail use and
undertook a feasibility study of reactivating this alignment as dedicated freight corridor. The corridor would use
road and rail elements to connect freight traffic to I-93 and the Pan Am system, separating it from residential and
commercial use of Medford Street. The proposed corridor faced community opposition and Massport indicated
46
that implementation was not contemplated in the near term. The Mystic Wharf rail corridor represents a potential
long-term opportunity integrally tied to the future use of the Autoport and Medford Street properties. Given the
residential nature of Medford Street, a dedicated freight corridor could emerge as an important planning
consideration.
Significance. While truck access is and will remain the primary mode of landside access in South Boston, the
network capacity and management issues discussed earlier point to the benefit of diverting some portion of future
cargo growth north of Summer Street onto direct rail. If the full capacity of 6,000 carloads per year were realized,
24,000 truck trips per year would be removed from the roadway network (saving 2.4 million vehicle miles
47
traveled). Even the more conservative 2,070 carloads estimated by the Massachusetts Freight Plan would divert
43
MassDOT Rail Program; http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/portals/12/docs/RailPlan/MARailProgram.pdf.; http://www.joc.com/railintermodal/class-i-railroads/csx-transportation/csx-opens-double-stack-intermodal-route-new-england_20130125.html. Second-generation
double-stack refers to a clearance of 20’ 8”, allowing two 9.5-foot containers to be stacked.
44
The project was estimated to cost $14 million in 2009. (TIGER grant application, City of Boston, 2009.)
45
MassDOT, Massachusetts Freight Plan, 2010; p. ES-48.
46
http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/readingroom.nsf/UNID/686EDCC7C867B2128525701C004EAFDB/$file/35692.pdf and
http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/notices/112205em/7.pdf
47
TIGER grant application, City of Boston, 2009.
November 8, 2013 Draft
16
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
8,000 trucks per year from the network. Moreover, for bulk cargo and cold storage operators who could take
advantage of the direct ship- or warehouse-to-rail connection, Track 61 would provide a competitive advantage
that could influence decisions to locate, remain, or consolidate in the Marine Industrial Park. Massport anticipates
the next phase of bulk cargo warehouse and cold storage development to be constructed by its ground-lease
48
tenant at Massport Marine Terminal in the near future, a facility that would make ready use of Track 61.
4.2.3 Institutional Context
Ownership and Control. Massport is the principal facility owner and operator in the Port of Boston, with
properties that include Conley Terminal, Black Falcon, the Fish Pier, Massport Marine Terminal, Boston Autoport,
the Medford Street Terminal, other general cargo facilities, and the Massport commercial real estate portfolio in
South Boston and Charlestown. Massport is the state’s only port entity with ownership, control, and independent
operating and capital funding.
However, Massport does not control the entire Port of Boston. The key liquid bulk petroleum terminals described
earlier along Chelsea Creek and the east bank of the Mystic River are in the cities of Boston, Chelsea, and
Everett and are unaffiliated with Massport. As noted earlier, a large segment of the working port area in South
Boston consists of the Boston Marine Industrial Park, owned and controlled by the City’s Economic Development
and Industrial Corporation; in fact, the Massport Marine Terminal is not owned in fee by Massport but is a longterm leasehold within the Marine Industrial Park. The Boston Redevelopment Authority is also the underlying
owner of Long and Rowe’s Wharves, where the two downtown ferry terminals are located.
Coordination occurs on an on-going basis between Massport and the City of Boston with respect to maritime land
use, access, and economic development issues in South Boston and Charlestown, and among Massport, the
Coast Guard, the Corps of Engineers, and affected shippers with respect to dredging, security, and other issues
affecting the port as a whole.
DPA Issues. Massport has stated that the DPA designations in the Port (South Boston, East Boston, Chelsea
Creek, and Mystic River) serve their intended purpose of protecting viable maritime water and backland from nonmaritime redevelopment pressure. The City of Boston’s Maritime Economy Reserve zoning district generally,
although not uniformly, reflects the DPA. Neither Massport nor the City has requested in the course of this study
that DPA boundaries be modified.
DPA boundary issues arise with varying frequency within Boston Harbor. In recent years, a slight modification
was requested by a property owner and approved by the Commonwealth on the edges of the East Boston DPA,
while a more complex boundary modification involving several properties in the Mystic River DPA was partly
overturned in court. In an important accommodation that did not require a boundary change, the City of Chelsea,
in partnership with Eastern Minerals, Inc., recently secured state approval for a flexible, seasonal public access
area within its portion of the Chelsea Creek DPA. Eastern will demolish and remediate its six tanks and expand its
active sand pile, while creating the community’s first public open space access to the Creek. 49 Together, these
few instances confirm that in Boston Harbor DPA boundaries are generally accepted and that boundary reviews
are relatively infrequent.
4.2.4 Issues Identified
The principal issues to emerge from this analysis of the Port of Boston include:
• The future of the container business at Conley Terminal, as Massport expands terminal and landside
capacity by implementing the Coastal Oil expansion and Dedicated Freight Corridor projects.
48
49
Discussion with Andrew Hargens, Massport.
http://www.unionparkpress.com/does-a-park-need-nature-the-challenge-of-chelseas-port/
November 8, 2013 Draft
17
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
• Channel depth for present and future cargo operations, with advancement and funding of the proposed Deep
Draft Navigation Improvement Project the pivotal strategic issue.
• Optimization of petroleum cargo delivery in Chelsea Creek, now that navigational clearance is resolved by
the Chelsea Street Bridge Replacement.
• The long-term use of Massport’s Medford Street properties and future consideration of a dedicated freight
corridor along the Mystic Wharf Branch Rail alignment.
• The long-term capacity of Cruiseport/Black Falcon to accommodate future demand, including enhanced
coordination with the City on parking, landside access, and Seaport District connections.
• The future viability of the Fish Pier from both the dockage and on-site fish processing perspectives.
• An overall dockage, capacity, and landside strategy for the commercial excursion sector, taking into account
its overlap with MBTA and Harbor Islands ferry operations.
• Assuming implementation of the Conley Dedicated Freight Corridor, other constraints in the South Boston
roadway network where truck traffic competes with rapidly growing Seaport District commercial and
residential traffic.
• The opportunity to activate and extend Track 61 as part of cargo and cold storage development in the Marine
Terminal and Marine Industrial park.
November 8, 2013 Draft
18
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
4.3 Fall River
Figure 4: Fall River Study Area
4.3.1 Port Operations
4.3.1.1
Cargo
The Port of Fall River, which includes multiple DPA areas on both the Fall River and Somerset sides of the
Taunton River, currently supports only two significant, on-going cargo activities:
• The delivery of coal and petroleum products for power generation, which occurs at Brayton Point in
Somerset. Brayton Point’s new owner, Energy Capital Partners, has filed for permission to close the plant as
November 8, 2013 Draft
19
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
of 2017, leaving the future use of this deepwater DPA unknown. (The second DPA power plant in Somerset,
the former Montaup Station, has been closed and is in the process of demolition and remediation.)
• The manufacture and shipment of specialty chemicals, and the import of liquid raw materials, by Borden and
Remington, Inc., whose 26-acre industrial complex is located immediately south of Fall River State Pier.
State Pier was once the terminal of the Fall River Line steamship service to Boston and New York. Today it is an
eight-acre site with deep-water berths of 550 feet and 400 feet, and a roll-on/roll-off facility with an 80-foot ramp.
50
There is a 96,000 square foot cargo shed and 100,000 square feet of open storage yards. The Commonwealth,
through the Seaport Advisory Council and Seaport Bond, has made periodic investments in the pier, including the
reconstruction of the west face a decade ago, a recent upgrade of the south berth, and a planned expansion to
include a floating dock. For the future, the City envisions a multi-use terminal at State Pier supporting increased
cargo activities on a portion of the apron and in the transit shed as well as cruise, ferry, and excursion activities
supported by visitor-related commercial uses on the upper level. Both the Massachusetts Freight Plan and the
51
Southeast Massachusetts MPO Long-Range Transportation Plan acknowledge this multi-use concept.
The remaining cargo facility in the port is the inactive Weaver Cove Energy terminal, the site of a proposed and
eventually cancelled LNG facility. With a 700-foot deep-water berth and direct rail and highway access, this 30acre site could be redeveloped for industrial and cargo use. However, a portion of the site has been designated
as the Fall River Branch layover site for South Coast Rail, and a Reuse Task Force convened by the City in 2012
recommended mixed‐use development under normal Chapter 91 provisions rather than continued inclusion in the
52
DPA.
Significance. The Port of Fall River has deep-water piers, interstate highway access, and direct rail—key assets
for cargo shipping. Yet it lacks the critical mass of cargo activity and infrastructure that exists in nearby New
Bedford. Fall River State Pier, the traditional center of port activities, is hemmed in by the visitor attractions of
Battleship Cove and Heritage State Park, which occupy the waterfront immediately to its north. It is separated by
53
two miles from Weaver Cove, which requires remediation even for industrial reuse. The Port of New Bedford is
close to Fall River, shares its access to the interstate highway system via I-195 and Route 24, and is four miles
from open ocean, as opposed to 16 for the Port of Fall River. These conditions do not obviate legitimate
opportunities to attract new and stable cargo business to Fall River, including at State Pier, where improvements
are needed to support both cargo and passenger uses. Rather, they suggest that the primary opportunity for a
region-scale, diversified cargo port on the South Coast is in New Bedford.
4.3.1.2
Passenger Transportation
Cruises. There are no ocean cruises calling Fall River at this time. The 400-foot State Pier berth available for
cruises can accommodate a vessel of up to 600 feet, but not larger ocean cruise vessels, which typically require
800 to 900 feet of berth length. Fall River officials view their potential to attract small and medium-sized cruise
ships as linked to the development of retail, restaurant, hotel, and entertainment uses along the waterfront.
Ferries. Fall River recently initiated a feasibility study for seasonal high-speed ferry service to Newport and Block
Island, RI. The study will address waterside and landside access, dockage, and parking issues potentially
affecting feasibility, as well as market demand.
50
MassDOT, Massachusetts Freight Plan, p. 2-123.
Ibid., and Southeast Massachusetts MPO Regional Transportation Plan (http://www.srpedd.org/transportation/2012documents/TPLANFINAL/chapter-14.pdf).
52
City of Fall River, Weaver’s Cove Reuse Task Force Report, 2012.
53
Discussion with Kenneth Fiola Jr., City of Fall River.
51
November 8, 2013 Draft
20
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
Commercial Recreational Vessels. In 2012, the Harbor Queen, a small cruise ship previously based in Newport,
54
undertook a pilot excursion cruise from Fall River State Pier. This service was not continued and there are no
other excursion vessels currently operating in Fall River. The City would like to attract such operators to either
State Pier or the proposed rebuilt City Pier. Further study is needed to quantify market demand and dockage
issues.
State Pier and City Pier. In terms of physical facilities, the key to these potential passenger transport businesses
is an improved State Pier and a rebuilt City Pier. The former would be improved to accommodate cruise ships as
part of the proposed multi-use terminal concept. City Pier is a 3.5-acre municipally owned site located about 3,000
feet north of State Pier, on the other side of Battleship Cove and Heritage State Park. Formerly a lumber mill, the
pier has been vacant since 1980 and was highly contaminated. The Commonwealth, through the Seaport
Advisory Council and other resources, has funded the $2 million remediation of City Pier. Its reconstruction and
55
reuse would accommodate a marina (see below) and supportive, tourist-related development, such as a hotel.
Cruise ships and island ferries would operate at State Pier, while excursion vessels could operate at either site.
Fall River also plans a highly visible marina at City Pier to help expand private recreational boating in and around
the Central Waterfront. One major marina, Borden Light, currently exists just south of the Borden and Remington
facility.
Figure 5: Fall River Central Waterfront
54
55
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120517/PUB03/205170389 and http://harborqueencruise.com/.
http://www.brownfieldsconference.org/en/ErfSite/160/Fall_River_City_Pier
November 8, 2013 Draft
21
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
Significance. Fall River envisions tourism, recreation, and waterfront cultural activities, serving a combined market
of residents and visitors, as a primary strategy for revitalizing its city center and creating jobs. Waterborne
passenger activities, including small- to mid-sized cruises, an island ferry, commercial excursions, and private
recreational boating, are integral to this strategy. The development of waterborne passenger activity at State and
City Piers, and visitor-related commercial uses on the Central Waterfront, is related to the plan to transform Davol
Street and locate South Coast Rail stations near both piers (see the following sections).
4.3.2 Landside Access
4.3.2.1
Highway
The Port of Fall River has good highway access, including US 79 and Route 24 to I-95 and Boston; I-195 to
Providence; I-195 and Route 6 to Cape Cod; and Route 138 to coastal Rhode Island. Routes I-195, 79, and 138
converge in the Central Waterfront area, and two major projects have been advanced that would substantially
reconfigure that space.
• MassDOT recently awarded a $197 million contract to rebuild and simplify the multi-level interchange of
Routes I-195, 79, and 138. This interchange includes the I-195 approach to the Braga Bridge and dominates
the vista from downtown to the waterfront. The project will remove nine “spaghetti ramps”, resulting in
enhanced visual connectivity between downtown and the waterfront and the potential for enhanced physical
56
connectivity, on foot and by shuttle, at street level.
• MassDOT and the City are evaluating the redesign and reconstruction of Route 79 along the waterfront
between the Braga and Brightman Bridges, converting it from a limited access highway to an at-grade urban
boulevard. MassDOT’s current Route 79 / Davol Street Corridor Study is the continuation of an initial
57
planning effort completed by the Fall River Redevelopment Authority in 2008. The boulevard concept would
eliminate a principal barrier between the waterfront and the neighborhoods north of downtown; make City
Pier more accessible; create eight to ten acres of developable land and open space on the water side of the
highway; and connect the future Fall River Depot passenger rail station to the waterfront. The Southeast
58
Massachusetts MPO Long-Range Transportation Plan supports this project.
4.3.2.2
Rail
The Port of Fall River is served by the Fall River Line, which the Commonwealth recently purchased from CSX.
The line connects directly to the CSX system and provides direct access to the State Pier and other industrial
sites in Fall River. The Southeast Massachusetts Regional Transportation Plan recommends double-tracking the
Fall River line from Taunton to optimize freight and future passenger rail operations, as well as track upgrades to
accommodate weight capacity from the current 263,000 pounds to the industry standard 286,000.
The same line will be used for the Fall River branch of the South Coast Rail commuter service to Boston, with
stations at Battleship Cove/State Pier and at the old Fall River Depot site across Route 79 from City Pier. This
represents a threshold opportunity to promote downtown revitalization, mixed-use development on the waterfront,
and integrated rail-to-cruise itineraries. While not usually thought of as a port project, South Coast Rail could
reposition Fall River with respect to water transportation.
Significance. South Coast Rail, the proposed redesign of Route 79, and the elimination of some “spaghetti ramps”
between downtown and State Pier would each help open up Fall River’s Central Waterfront for daily use by
56
ht http://www.heraldnews.com/news/x1292454818/MassDOT-awards-200M-Route-79-I-195-interchange-and-Braga-Bridge-project-tolowest-bidder#axzz2WlqY9vcR.
57
http://www.srpedd.org/transportation/2012-documents/TPLANFINAL/chapter-14.pdf;
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/29/Docs/Route_79_WG_5_Meeting%20Summary.pdf
58
The Southeast Massachusetts MPO Regional Transportation Plan (http://www.srpedd.org/transportation/2012documents/TPLANFINAL/chapter-14.pdf).
November 8, 2013 Draft
22
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
visitors and local residents. At the same time, the reconstruction of the elevated interchange, which includes
several structurally deficient bridges, will safeguard truck and automobile access to all of the viable port areas on
both the Fall River and Somerset sides of the river.
4.3.3 Institutional Context
DPA. In the course of this study, the City of Fall River has articulated its long-held concern that the DPA
designation of State Pier and the lands across Water Street limits the type of mixed-use, tourism-based waterfront
development that Fall River hopes to generate on its emerging Central Waterfront, and that the status of these
59
properties should be reevaluated. CZM would be supportive of a comprehensive look into impediments to
60
tourism-related commercial uses, for areas both inside and outside the DPA. It is understood that several uses
supported by the City, including enhanced cargo activity at State Pier and the adjoining Borden and Remington
complex, as well as the cruise, ferry, and excursion operations envisioned at State Pier, are DPA-conforming.
The City of Fall River’s Task Force on the reuse of Weaver’s Cove has recommended that the DPA designation
for that 30-acre deepwater site, located well upriver from the downtown waterfront, also be reevaluated. The two
Somerset DPA sites, were designated because of their power plants. Montaup Station is closed, and Brayton
Point has filed for closing in 2017.
Ownership and Control. There is no single port planning or management entity in Fall River, and there is no joint
planning structure involving the Fall River and Somerset port stakeholders. Waterfront planning, including
planning for the future of the various locations within the study area, is directed by the Fall River Office of
Economic Development.
The Commonwealth is a principal landowner in the Central Waterfront area, owning both the State Pier and the
Heritage State Park. Both properties are owned by the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). The
State Pier is leased from DCR and managed by Fall River Line Pier, Inc., a non-profit corporation. Battleship
Cove, the major waterfront visitor attraction commonly thought of as part of the Heritage State Park, is owned by
a non-profit corporation, the USS Massachusetts Memorial Committee, which leases the north face of State Pier.
The City of Fall River, through its Redevelopment Authority, owns City Pier. If the proposed multi-use concept for
State Pier is to advance, a broad partnership between the City and DCR will be required.
4.3.4 Issues Identified
The principal issues to emerge from this analysis of the Port of Fall River include:
• A strategy for waterborne passenger transport businesses on Fall River’s Central Waterfront, evaluating ferry
service to Newport and Block Island, determining the dockage and logistical requirements of excursion
operators, and marketing the city for small regional cruises.
• The need for significant improvements to State Pier, enabling it to support both cargo and passenger uses.
• Planning and implementing the reuse of City Pier, as its remediation concludes.
• Enhancing the connection of the city to the waterfront, through the reconfiguration of the “spaghetti ramp”
interchange and advancement of the Route 79 / Davol Street waterfront boulevard concept.
• Using the future South Coast Rail stations at the old Fall River Depot site and Battleship Cove/State Pier as
economic generators, while improving the rail line for freight.
• Determining an appropriate, economically productive reuse for the Weaver Cove site, taking into account its
highway, rail, and deep water attributes.
59
60
Discussion with Kenneth Fiola, Jr., City of Fall River.
Communication from CZM, September 2013.
November 8, 2013 Draft
23
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
• Reevaluating the current DPA requirements in the Central Waterfront.
4.4 Gloucester
Figure 6: Gloucester Study Area
November 8, 2013 Draft
24
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
4.4.1 Port Operations
4.4.1.1
Cargo
Gloucester is not a cargo port in the traditional sense. Gloucester’s multi-purpose marine terminal and Cruiseport
can handle an array of special cargoes on its “mega-dock,” including the wind turbine components that were
imported in 2012 to assemble the three turbines erected in Blackburn Industrial Park. There are no dedicated
facilities for handling containers.
4.4.1.2
Passenger Transportation
Cruise. The Port of Gloucester is well situated, with waters deep and wide enough to accommodate large cruise
vessels with capacities up to 2,000 passengers. Gloucester’s cruise terminal investment has already been made,
in the form of Cruiseport Gloucester. This private facility includes a Homeland Security-licensed passenger
terminal as well as general marine and visitor amenities and a multi-purpose “mega-dock”. The berth length
61
accommodates ships up to 500 feet in length and drawing up to 20 feet in depth. Vessels would benefit from an
on-shore power source, which is not currently available.
Because Gloucester is not a homeport, its cruise business does not have significant parking needs. Should
Gloucester attract homeport cruises in the future, Cruiseport would be able to accommodate additional parking.
Consequently, parking is not a constraint for expanding the cruise industry in Gloucester.
With the Cruiseport investment in place, Gloucester’s needs are focused on marketing. The Historic Ports of
Massachusetts concept promoted by the Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism includes Gloucester and
Salem, but competes with the far better funded Cruise Canada campaign—a consortium of 10 ports on the St.
Lawrence and in the Maritimes, plus marketing arrangements with Bar Harbor, Portland, Boston, and New York.
Gloucester hopes that the proposed Beauport Hotel on Commercial Street will encourage port calls of longer than
62
a single day.
Commercial Recreational Vessels. Gloucester is host to a robust sector of whale watchers, schooners, and
other relatively large excursion vessels. The City does not have centralized data on this sector, but it is clear that
dockage in close proximity to downtown (beyond those already operating from Harbor Loop) is limited. Possible
dockage locations within walking distance of downtown should be explored because they would promote
additional visitor spending. Existing privately-owned and unused dockage in the inner harbor (such as the wharf at
63
Americold’s cold storage facility) could be used for commercial recreational vessels. Gloucester has recently
engaged a consultant team to study these issues, including prospective market demand, as part of an updated
64
Gloucester harbor economic development strategy.
Private Recreational Vessels. Gloucester marina operators report long waiting lists and a willingness to expand
the numbers of slips. There is potential demand for transient dockage convenient to downtown and East
Gloucester. A recent study commissioned by the City’s Waterways Board assessed the concept of a floating
transient dockage facility within the DPA, with a water taxi service connecting boaters to landside destinations.
65
Such a project would be allowed under the DPA regulations but was found not to be economically feasible.
Because the regulations do not otherwise permit year-round private recreational marinas, the alternative of using
privately-owned and unused facilities portions of the Inner Harbor for transient recreational vessel dockage cannot
be addressed without a regulatory change.
61
Larger ships calling on Gloucester would have to anchor in the harbor and transfer passengers to smaller vessels that can dock at shore.
Discussion with Cruiseport operations director Melissa Abbott, July 2013.
63
The Americold wharf is largely unused because Gloucester’s frozen fish processors obtain most of their product by air and truck.
64
Discussion with Cruiseport operations director Melissa Abbott, July 2013.
65
http://www.gloucestertimes.com/local/x1750259334/Study-1-8M-marina-plan-is-not-viable
62
November 8, 2013 Draft
25
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
Significance. The tourism and recreation market is one “leg” of Gloucester’s “three-legged” port development
strategy. Waterborne transportation is in turn an integral part of tourism and recreation; the city’s downtown
restaurant, retail, and cultural attractions are within easy walking distance of Cruiseport and the docks currently
serving excursion vessels; water taxi connections are available to the attractions of East Gloucester and Rocky
Neck. The cruise business, while still in its infancy, has a highly visible, first-class facility from which to market
itself. The excursion sector, which as noted earlier has a strong per passenger impact, is fragmented among
downtown, East Gloucester, and the Annisquam River, and needs more dockage and more robust marketing in
66
order to grow. Private recreational boating, for which transient dockage near downtown, east Gloucester, and
Rocky Neck would be very attractive, is currently constrained by DPA regulations.
4.4.1.3
Fishing and Fish Processing
The management and regulation of commercial fisheries is a complex balance of the need for sustainable fish
stocks and economic viability. Any economic analysis of the Port of Gloucester begins with this issue. At the
writing of this Memorandum, recent events include the Department of Commerce’s 2012 declaration of an
“economic disaster” in the New England groundfishery; the effort of the New England Congressional delegation to
secure an FY2014 appropriation to fund disaster relief for fishermen based on that declaration; NOAA’s issuance
of the 2013 groundfish allotments; and the suit filed by Attorney General Coakley to have those allotments set
67
aside. The ability of groundfish stocks to rebound and over what timeframe is uncertain. Any increase in
groundfish allotments likely would be a short-term solution to what fisheries science now indicates is a long-term
problem. Disaster declaration funding may be helpful to fishermen and others in the local fish and seafood
economy, provided the appropriation can be secured.
Berthing for commercial fishing vessels exists at both public and private facilities in Gloucester Harbor. The public
facilities are dedicated to commercial fishing vessels. Jodrey State Fish Pier, an eight-acre facility at the head of
the harbor managed by MassDevelopment on behalf of the Commonwealth, has 54 berths for fishing vessels up
to 100 feet in length and, on the north side, three berths for vessels up to 145 feet in length. There are two cityowned facilities: St. Peter’s Marina has 14 slips and a transient dock, and Harbor Cove Marina has 12 slips.
Berthing for commercial fishing vessels is also available at private marinas and at the piers and wharves of
privately-owned properties along the inner harbor.
There are considerable waiting lists at the public facilities. Little of the private berthing is reserved exclusively for
commercial vessels, and much of the privately-owned docks and piers are in need of maintenance and upgrading,
making this portion of the supply uncertain over the long term. The difficulty of raising affordable capital for
privately-owned properties is a long-standing challenge (see the “institutional” discussion below.).
There is a need for additional permanent berthing space for commercial fishing vessels, particularly larger ones.
The current fleet is dominated by smaller vessels (less than 45 feet), but the industry’s future success will depend
on a balanced fleet. There are several locations in Gloucester Harbor that have extensive water frontage but are
not currently available for berthing. Public/private coordination is needed to make these locations available. There
is also the need for additional transient dockage for vessels not home-ported in Gloucester.
Significance. While the City’s “three-legged” port strategy embraces both the visitor economy and the New
Maritime Economy as strategic principles, the vitality and character of the harbor is widely understood to pivot on
the future of the fishery. The collapse of groundfish stocks and the lengthy controversy surrounding the federal
regulatory structure is the central economic issue in Gloucester, and because the DPA is dominated by fishery66
Currently, the City’s tourism website lists whale watch, charter, and deep sea fishing vessels and provides a link to their respective
websites. http://www.gloucesterma.com/Attractions.cfm?c=54.
67
http://www.pressherald.com/politics/fishery-disaster-bill-sent-to-senate_2013-07-19.html; http://www.mass.gov/ago/news-andupdates/press-releases/2013/2013-05-30-noaa-lawsuit.html.
November 8, 2013 Draft
26
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
related facilities, the impact is pervasive. In recent years the Gloucester fleet consistently landed over 100 million
pounds of direct catch; however, from 2009 to 2011, according to NOAA’s latest US port statistics released in
68
September 2012, Gloucester landings declined 63%, from 122 million pounds to 77 million. In the near term, the
loss of jobs, income, and economically viable boat ownership is self-evident. As groundfish landings have
diminished, the number of fresh fish processors and commercial fishing-related services has declined. Over time,
the lack of money flowing through Gloucester’s groundfish economy has had a negative impact on the condition
of private docks and upland support facilities, which, if not addressed, will be unavailable for any future rebound of
the fishery.
4.4.1.4
Dredging
There is a need for maintenance dredging of the federal channel in Gloucester Inner Harbor as well as some of
the private berthing areas. Permits to dredge the berthing areas between the North Channel and adjacent
bulkheads and piers are in hand; however, the necessary state and private funds are not yet available. This
dredging project would deepen the area between the North Channel and the State Pier to 26 feet,
accommodating the 400-foot vessels that ship herring to China. Another 51,200 cubic yards would be removed
from the berthing areas along the opposite side of the North Channel from the Coast Guard station north. This
latter portion is complicated by the need for National Grid to do a major remediation project on its upland and in
adjacent waters; this includes dredging the top layer of sediment from about seven acres of subtidal area in front
of National Grid’s property and the adjacent Coast Guard and harbormaster properties and capping the remaining
sediment in near-shore confined aquatic disposal (CAD) cells. This project is due to begin in late 2014 and will
69
take three years; the North Channel berthing area dredge project cannot happen until this is done.
The Annisquam River is important not only to recreational and commercial traffic, but to the Coast Guard’s transit
between Gloucester Harbor and Ipswich Bay. Presently, the Coast Guard will not take its larger vessels through
the Annisquam and has limits on operation of its 25-foot vessels. A large shoal at the northern end near
Wingaersheek Beach was dredged several years ago, addressing the most severe problem; however, areas of
the river shoal continuously and navigation would benefit from further dredging. Since the Army Corps of
Engineers does not fund small, non-cargo projects, the Seaport Bond is the likely funding source.
Significance. These dredging issues impact all of the major maritime business sectors in Gloucester: fishing,
ocean cruise vessels, and recreational boating, both commercial and private.
4.4.1.5
New Maritime Economy
70
In the last several years, the City has taken an initiative to broaden its harbor development strategy. The longstanding paradigm consisted of a dual emphasis on the fishing and visitor economies, with some tension between
the two over the long-term use of the harbor’s waterway and land resources. The new approach recognizes a
third opportunity—the New Maritime Port Economy. As illustrated in Figure 7, this new construct overlaps and
reinforces, but is distinct from, the commercial fishing and visitor sectors.
The New Maritime Economy seeks to capitalize on Gloucester’s maritime history, connection to the ocean, and
proximity to the Gulf of Maine and the North Atlantic coast. Two seminal events in the City’s development of this
idea were a Maritime Economy Summit, which it convened in 2011, and the publication in 2012 of a report by the
Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) and the City on Gloucester’s New Maritime Port Economy. The
theme of this report was that there is an emerging Marine Science and Technology (MST) cluster in eastern New
England, that it has both infrastructural and intellectual foundations, and that Gloucester has the geographic
68
http://www.gloucestertimes.com/local/x964639688/Fishtown-slides-as-a-top-port/print.
Discussion with Gloucester Harbormaster; City of Gloucester, Inner Harbor Dredge Project, Environmental Notification Form (ENF).
70
This discussion is based on conversations and written comments provided by the City of Gloucester, comments by Mayor Carolyn Kirk at
Port Compact Meetings, and proceedings of the annual Maritime Port Economy Summits.
69
November 8, 2013 Draft
27
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
position and institutional resources to participate. The report noted that Massachusetts industry has successfully
transitioned from a manufacturing model to an “innovation and production model in which the employees are the
primary competitive asset and are paid a premium at both the high-skilled and low-skilled levels.” For Gloucester,
the strategic opening would be an innovation and production model based on the port’s human knowledge of the
71
marine environment.
Gloucester’s efforts to tap into this cluster have led to a number of new businesses locating or starting up in the
City. Of particular importance, both substantive and symbolic, is the development by Ocean Alliance, Inc., of its
headquarters and marine sciences center at the iconic marine paint factory on the tip of Rocky Neck. This facility,
whose initial phase opened in 2013, will be the home of the Alliance’s research programs in toxicology, behavior,
bioacoustics, and genetics. One of the Alliance’s ocean-going research vessels, the Odyssey, is and will remain
home-ported in Gloucester. The project saved a marine landmark from demolition or from non-maritime use and
is suggestive of the confluence of the traditional and new maritime economies.
In the wake of Ocean Alliance have come other marine technology interests. The Alliance is working with the
Warner Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry to develop plastics that biodegrade in saltwater. Another partner is
Olin College of Engineering, based in Needham, whose students design the robots and drones that Ocean
72
Alliance uses in its work. The Large Pelagics Center, established in Gloucester three years ago, is a
collaboration between UMass Amherst and the state Division of Marine Fisheries. The Center, which conducts
biological and ecological research on tunas, sharks, billfish, and sea turtles, is revitalizing the UMass marine Lab
73
at Gloucester’s Hodgkin’s Cove. Local companies are developing service and products in fish waste reuse,
pollution control, and aquaculture.
Figure 7: Gloucester "Three-Legged" Port Economic Strategy
Source: Gloucester Harbor Economic Development Plan
74
Significance. The Marine Science and Technology Cluster described in the MAPC reports is no small opportunity.
A 2005 report by the UMass Donahue Institute estimated this cluster to be a $4.8 billion industry in New England,
71
Metropolitan Area Planning Council and City of Gloucester, The New Maritime Port Economy Gloucester, Massachusetts; 2012.March 2012
The city recently hosted the national SailBot races in which 16 college and high school teams, including the US Naval Academy, competed
with their automated, programmed robotic sailboats on race courses off the harbor’s beaches. The city schools participated, with the course
instructor stating afterwards that the experience had propelled the students’ learning forward five years in one event. The associate
professors from Olin College arranging the race are former vice-presidents at iRobot.
73
http://www.umass.edu/largepelagics/
74
City of Gloucester (Mt. Auburn Associates), May 2011.
72
November 8, 2013 Draft
28
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
75
touching the research, sustainability, innovation, education, and cultural markets. A 2006 study by the Battelle
Institute, in collaboration with MassInsight, took a comprehensive look at economic opportunity in the marine
environment, noting that “disruptive” rather than evolutionary changes are happening in global maritime markets.
The Battelle report surveyed maritime sectors and identified the Massachusetts advantages in ocean observing,
prediction, and management systems. The report further noted that the MA advantage could easily erode without
76
adapting to the rapid shifts in approaches.
A strategy to promote the New Maritime Port Economy cannot be limited to traditional infrastructure funding.
Research and development, workforce development, market development, and business finance are critical. The
City notes as a core resource the specialized and diversified port workforce, including the fishing and processing
sectors and the NOAA, Coast Guard, and other marine agencies with Gloucester bases. One near-term
opportunity at the time of this Memorandum is the reactivation in 2013 of NOAA’s Saltonstall-Kennedy program,
which provides funds and cooperative agreements for fisheries research and development projects addressing
harvesting, processing, marketing, and associated business infrastructures. Gloucester’s pursuit of SaltonstallKennedy funding is an opportunity to apply New Maritime Economy R&D resources to the fishing industry.
4.4.2 Landside Access
4.4.2.1
Highway
The Port of Gloucester is located in Gloucester Inner Harbor. Like Gloucester as a whole, its only access to the
regional highway system is via Route 128, which crosses the Annisquam River on a high bridge and proceeds as
a two-way surface arterial into the port area. Route 127, a local roadway connecting Gloucester and Rockport to
Manchester-by-the-Sea, is the only other road that crosses the Annisquam River/Blynman Canal waterway. “Lastmile” truck connections between Route 128 and all DPA locations are via local streets. No specific highway
infrastructure gaps or needs were identified in either the State Freight Plan or the Boston Region MPO’s Regional
Transportation Plan (Paths to a Sustainable Region, 2011) for the Port of Gloucester.
4.4.2.2
Rail
The Port of Gloucester does not have direct rail service. There is no existing right of way connecting the MBTA
commuter line to the port area, and given the absence of significant cargo activity, rail service to the port is not
contemplated. The commuter rail station is within marginal walking distance, or easy shuttle distance, of
Cruiseport and the excursion vessels operating in the downtown portion of the DPA.
4.4.3 Institutional Context
DPA. Historically, the City of Gloucester has wrestled with DPA issues, particularly when confronted with
proposals for private recreational boating facilities and tourism-related mixed-use development. The City and
state have addressed the land-side tension through a formula in the Updated Harbor Plan/DPA Master Plan
approved by the Secretary in 2009. The Plan allows 50% of any parcel and just over 30% of the land area of the
whole DPA to be used for “DPA Supporting Uses”, and provides an approved mechanism for determining that a
proposed Supporting Use meets the standard of providing direct operational or economic support to core DPA
77
uses.
75
.“The Marine Science and Technology Industry in New England” prepared by the University of Massachusetts Donahue Institute Authors
Clyde Barrow, Rebecca Loveland and David Terkla, 2005.
76
Battelle Institute, Seizing the Opportunity in Coastal and Ocean Observation, Prediction and Management: A Call for a Massachusetts
Coastal Ocean Technology Consortium, 2006.
77
Decision on the City of Gloucester’s Request for Approval of the Gloucester Municipal Harbor Plan Renewal and Designated Port Area
Master Plan Pursuant To 301 CMR 23.00.
November 8, 2013 Draft
29
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
The City has also adopted a DPA strategy designed to support all three of its primary port strategies: fishing and
seafood processing; tourism and recreation; and the New Maritime Economy. Several key recent and current
harbor development initiatives are either DPA-compatible or located outside the DPA:
• The approved hotel on Commercial Street, which could support the marketing of Cruiseport, lies just outside
the DPA; hotels are not an allowable Supporting Use within a DPA.
• The historic Paint Factory, now home of Ocean Alliance, Inc., and a highly visible centerpiece of the City’s
New Marine Economy initiative, is located outside the DPA (and would likely conform if it were inside).
• For the City-owned I4-C2 urban renewal parcel, in the heart of the DPA, the City has indicated that it will
solicit development proposals consistent with the approved DPA Master Plan (50% water-dependent78
industrial, 50% Supporting Use as defined in the Regulations).
• Cruiseport Gloucester is DPA-compatible, with its restaurant and function areas qualifying as Supporting
Uses for the core functions of cruise and cargo.
The City is currently empaneling a new Harbor Plan Committee, with proposed Harbor Plan/DPA Master Plan
recommendations to be developed in 2014. In parallel with the planning initiative, CZM, at the City’s request, is
undertaking a comprehensive boundary review under the formal process provided in the DPA regulations. Some
properties in the Commercial Street / Fort Square area, at the southwest extremity of the DPA, have requested to
79
be removed.
Ownership and Control. Gloucester has no single port agency. The City’s port-related activities are divided
broadly into planning (led by the Director of Harbor Development in the Community Development Department)
and management (performed by the Harbormaster, in partnership with the Coast Guard). The policy framework
within which the Harbormaster works—regulations regarding the City’s waterways, fees for docking and mooring,
80
leases for City-owned docks—is established by the Gloucester Waterways Board.
Gloucester’s State Pier, the Jodrey State Fish Pier, is owned by the Department of Conservation and Recreation
but has been managed since the 1970s by MassDevelopment and its predecessor, the Massachusetts
Government Land Bank. MassDevelopment advocated for and managed the state-funded remediation and
modernization of the pier in the 1990s, which resulted in the facility as it is today. The GloucesterMassDevelopment partnership appears to be working, and could form the basis for an approach to reinvestment
in private DPA property.
A key ownership issue in Gloucester is the need to reinvest in marine facilities and infrastructure owned by private
parties. Compared to the other ports, including the fishing ports of New Bedford and Boston, Gloucester finds a
much larger portion of its DPA property in private hands. This creates an issue of planning and coordination, but
also one of capitalization. In general, the Commonwealth cannot use grant funds to directly aid private
corporations (whether for-profit or not-for-profit), and while it is possible for a private owner to transfer to a public
agency the property interests associated with a state-funded improvement, in many cases that approach may not
be practicable or agreeable. MassDevelopment, which manages an extraordinary array of finance programs to
support private industry, has a unique foothold in Gloucester as manager of the State Fish Pier. It also has,
81
among its specialized direct loan programs, the Gloucester Revolving Loan Fund.
78
See the City’s Draft RFP (http://www.gloucester-ma.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1298). As of this Memorandum, a proposal to file
home rule legislation removing I4-C2 from the DPA has not been supported by the City Administration.
79
http://gloucester-ma.gov/index.aspx?NID=726; see DPA Boundary Review, Public Comment.
80
http://www.gloucester-ma.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1041
81
http://www.massdevelopment.com/financing/specialty-loan-programs/. The Fund can make direct loans of up to 90% of project costs for
business expansions, at amounts of up to $100,000 or, with matching funds from a participant, $250,000.
November 8, 2013 Draft
30
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
4.4.4 Issues Identified
The principal issues to emerge from this analysis of the Port of Gloucester include:
• Gloucester’s commitment to the New Maritime Port Economy, and the need for a business development
strategy analogous to the need for traditional infrastructure development in this and other ports.
• The short- and long-term impacts of federal groundfishery regulation and the condition of groundfish stocks.
• The need to provide additional dockage for commercial fishing vessels, and to understand the dockage and
access needs of the commercial excursion and private recreational sectors.
• Marketing Gloucester as a cruise port, taking advantage of the Cruiseport facility, favorable waterside
conditions, and the nearby attractions of Cape Ann.
• The need to maintain channel and berthing depth in the DPA and channel depth in the Annisquam River.
• The new round of Harbor Plan activity, including potential changes to the DPA Master Plan provisions and
the concurrent CZM review of the DPA boundary.
• The challenge of extensive private ownership of DPA facilities and the need to explore a financing and
reinvestment strategy in partnership with MassDevelopment.
November 8, 2013 Draft
31
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
4.5 New Bedford
Figure 8: New Bedford Study Area
4.5.1 Port Operations
4.5.1.1
Cargo
The Port of New Bedford has a substantial and diversified cargo sector today, and is intent on developing a
sustainable, New England-scale cargo business focused on State Pier, South Terminal, and North Terminal.
These facilities, and the issues associated with them, are addressed below.
November 8, 2013 Draft
32
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
Historically imported commodities include fresh produce from Northern Africa through trade relations in Morocco.
Exports have included seafood to Europe and Africa; however, this trade has fluctuated over recent years and
dedicated ocean service has not been sustainable. The Port has been engaged in trade discussions with the Port
of Tuxpan, Mexico to determine if a dedicated ocean service between the two could be sustained.
The goal is to connect the consumption market of New England and possibly Canada through the Port of New
Bedford with agricultural products that can be cost-effectively exported from Mexico through Tuxpan. Most of this
cargo today moves by truck across the US-Mexico border and into New England. The port continues to promote
the backhaul movement for exports from the New England region for the consumption market of Mexico City. The
port has interfaced consistently with the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), the Massachusetts Office of
International Trade and Investment, and the Massachusetts Export Center to promote the National Export
82
Initiative (NEI) under DOC oversight.
The Port of New Bedford has also been a major proponent of the development of the America’s Marine Highway
(AMH). The Port was one of five proponents, which were responsible for the Maritime Administration’s
designation of the M-95 AMH corridor. The Port continues to support this development and is active with parties
83
who envision the Port of New Bedford as key port along the corridor to access the New England markets.
New Bedford’s maritime cargo activities occur in four main terminal areas:
State Pier. New Bedford State Pier is an 8.5-acre facility in the heart of the DPA. It has three berths measuring
84
450 feet, 185 feet and 775 feet with 30-foot depth alongside. There are 125,000 square feet of covered storage
for general cargo. The terminal has roll on-roll off capability via a ramp that is 100 feet long and 18 feet wide and
will hold up to 200 tons; water depth at the ramp is 27 feet. In addition to serving as New Bedford’s cruise and
85
ferry terminal (see the passenger discussion below), State Pier is today the primary cargo facility in the harbor.
However, maintenance and repairs to the facility have lagged over the years.
During a 2013 inspection of the pier carried out by the Department of Conservation and Recreation, significant
deficiencies were identified that put restrictions on the facility, limiting the conditions under which vessels can
berth and the load capacity of the wharf. These issues jeopardize the ability of the facility to serve existing
customers, with a real potential that revenue may be lost. Should State Pier not be able to service scheduled
calls, forcing shipping lines to find alternate locations to deliver cargo, there is the possibility that they would not
return to New Bedford. On September 18, 2013, DCR awarded a contract for emergency repairs to the south and
east sides of the State Pier. In addition to these urgent repairs, permanent improvements are required to keep the
port competitive. For example:
• Refrigerated storage is not available in the warehouse, and this limits operation during the summer months.
• To accept containers, the pier apron would need to be upgraded to handle the weight of loaded containers
as well as a crane. A mobile harbor crane would have the flexibility to handle containers as well as breakbulk cargo.
• The laydown area at State Pier needs sufficient area to stage trucks that require customs clearance.
• There are 10 refer plugs available, a number which should be evaluated and increased as needed.
82
Discussions with Maritime Terminal, Inc., and New Bedford Harbor Development Commission.
http://www.marad.dot.gov/ships_shipping_landing_page/mhi_home/mhi_home.htm.
84
The 600-foot north face of the Pier consists of a ro-ro facility serving the Martha’s Vineyard ferry plus 185 feet of conventional berth space.
85
http://www.portofnewbedford.org/shipping/operating-areas-marine-terminals/central-port-area.php.
83
November 8, 2013 Draft
33
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
The Commonwealth has funded prior State Pier improvements through the Seaport Advisory Council, whose two
sources of funding are the Seaport Bond Bill (1996-2008) and the Environmental Bond Bill (2008-2013). The City
86
has identified a new round of State Pier improvements as a priority concern. The site plan of State Pier and the
areas restricted due to structural deficiencies are shown in Figure 9.
Figure 9: New Bedford State Pier
Source: Department of Conservation and Recreation
North Terminal. North Terminal is a large berthing, laydown, and railyard area located north of the Route 6
Bridge. It was developed in the 1970s as an intermodal cargo terminal; with the growth in vessel size, access to
North Terminal has become limited by the bridge’s 95-foot lateral clearance. North Terminal has potential for
heavy lift operations and niche cargos.
Within North Terminal, an 8.5-acre facility and adjacent lay-down and open storage area was developed by the
US Environmental Protection Agency for its superfund dewatering facility. It has 300 linear feet of bulkhead with a
draft of 15 feet, a multi-track rail spur, the capacity to accommodate direct load-out rail to ship, loading and
unloading of equipment, and a new Ro/Ro ramp for truck-to-barge transfer. The site is owned by the New Bedford
Harbor Development Commission and will revert to HDC when the EPA concludes its work. Potential expansions
include extension of the bulkhead northward from the EPA wharf to the former Revere Copper property, replacing
the “lobe”-like land formations along this portion of the water’s edge with a flat bulkhead.
Maritime Terminal, Inc. Also located north of the Route 6 Bridge are the three climate-controlled terminals
owned by Maritime Terminal, Inc., which is the primary cargo operator on State Pier as well. The Bridge Terminal
is located alongside the bridge (with its berths on the north side), and the Maritime Terminal and West Terminal
87
are located just north of the bridge. These facilities have large-scale, US Department of Agriculture and FDAapproved cold storage facilities and direct rail connections, but are, like North Terminal, limited in the size of
86
The State Pier section is based on discussions with City of New Bedford, Harbor Development Commission, and Maritime Terminal, Inc.
Maritime Terminal is the primary cargo operator at State Pier.
87
http://www.maritimeinternational.org/maritime-details.html.
November 8, 2013 Draft
34
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
vessels that can berth there. Maritime Terminal, Inc. coordinates operations between these terminals and State
Pier, depending on the vessel size involved and the time of year.
South Terminal. A specialized cargo opportunity of high potential value to the local and regional economy is the
support of offshore wind development. New Bedford, with the Commonwealth’s support, has made the
development of this business a strategic priority. Offshore wind support would begin with the construction of Cape
Wind and, if successful, would extend to construction of other offshore wind projects as well as long-term
operational support. To that end, the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MCEC) and the City have undertaken
the current major port investment at South Terminal.
This $100 million project broke ground in 2013. It will create the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal, a
purpose-built facility to support the construction, assembly, and deployment of wind turbines. The load strength of
the apron and upland area is being constructed to accommodate heavy lifts and will be unique in the northeastern
U.S. The terminal will have mobile cranes capable of handling high-volume bulk, breakbulk, and container
88
shipping, as well as large project cargoes. The project, with a total cost of up to $100 million, has the added
benefit of remediating 244,600 cubic yards of contaminated industrial sediment from decades ago.
Significance. New Bedford is the state’s principal cargo port outside of Boston, and the City has a demonstrated
commitment, with the Commonwealth’s help, to expand the cargo sector in a diversified and sustainable fashion.
No port outside Boston has a comparable critical mass of cargo facilities. To fully exploit this opportunity, a
number of deficiencies must be addressed.
• State Pier’s north, east, and south faces must all be upgraded. Beyond the urgent repairs and improvements
underway at the time of this Memorandum, longer-term improvements have been identified to enhance
capacity, efficiency, and management for the next 25 years.
• The navigational barrier created by the Route 6 Bridge is significant, limiting the utilization of the Maritime
Terminal cold storage facilities, the main North Terminal bulkhead, and the large, enclosed EPA facility to be
inherited by HDC. The area north of the bridge has direct on-dock rail access and the port’s best interstate
highway access. An earlier proposal to relocate the Route 6 Bridge has not been embraced, but the idea of
replacing the bridge and creating a 150-foot lateral clearance (equal to the Hurricane Barrier opening) is
supported by the City and endorsed by the Southeast Massachusetts MPO in its Long-Range Transportation
89
Plan. Like the recent Chelsea Street Bridge Replacement in Boston (although not necessarily as costly),
this would a major undertaking, whose costs and benefits should be evaluated through an analysis of the
90
specific potential port uses and their economic impacts should the bridge replacement be undertaken.
• The allocation of cargo types among the various facilities must be evaluated. For example, should a hub-
and-spoke or short-sea container service materialize in New Bedford, would containers necessarily be
handled at State Pier, requiring weight-bearing improvements and a mobile harbor crane, or could containers
be accommodated at South Terminal, which will already have sufficient lift and load-bearing capacity, without
disrupting offshore wind support activities? Should permanent cold storage capacity be developed at State
Pier, or—if the Route 6 Bridge were replaced—would the Maritime Terminal cold storage facilities north of
the bridge be sufficient?
• The City and HDC believe that a second offshore wind cargo facility may eventually be needed, with
sufficient heavy lift and load bearing capacity to stage large component pieces such as towers and blades.
91
88
http://www.portofnewbedford.org/shipping/operating-areas-marine-terminals/new-bedford-marine-commerce-terminal.php and
http://www.masscec.com/programs/new-bedford-marine-commerce-terminal
89
Southeast Massachusetts MPO, 2012 Regional Transportation Plan, p. 14-10; also MassDOT, State Freight Plan, p. 2-121.
90
CZM, October 2013.
91
Harbor Development Commission, October 2013.
November 8, 2013 Draft
35
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
Such a second facility, which might be located at North Terminal, would be needed if the industry matures to
92
the point of developing simultaneous projects.
• The costs and benefits of extending freight rail to South Terminal need to be addressed; see the rail
discussion below.
4.5.1.2
Passenger Transportation
Cruises. New Bedford’s cruise business operates from State Pier. New Bedford is easily accessible from land
with adequate accommodations for overnight guests, but is not a home port. For cruise ships, the harbor is well
protected by the Hurricane Barrier, although the barrier’s 150-foot lateral clearance, along with associated
entrance channel restrictions, limits the port to small cruise ships. At present, American Cruise Lines and Blount
Small Ship Adventures call at New Bedford.
To attract larger cruise ships, New Bedford would have to work with the Army Corps of Engineers either to widen
the Hurricane Barrier opening at some future time or to dredge a turnaround basin and anchorage outside the
barrier with a depth of at least 32 feet. The latter, which would allow larger vessels to anchor outside the barrier
and tender passengers to the State Pier terminal, would appear to be the more likely, albeit long-range,
93
alternative.
Ferries. Currently, New Bedford State Pier is home to two operations serving offshore islands. The Seastreak to
Martha’s Vineyard operates seasonally from the Ferry Terminal and ro-ro facility on the pier’s north side, and the
year-round Cuttyhunk serves the island of the same name from the pier’s south side. There is ample on-site
parking for these vessels. The continuation of ferry service from New Bedford is decided on virtually a year-toyear basis; the key to permanent, long-term operations and potential growth is the overall condition and capacity
of State Pier.
Commercial Recreational Vessels. New Bedford has limited excursion operators at present and limited dockage
facilities on the south side of State Pier. The 2010 Municipal Harbor Plan calls for an enhanced excursion vessel
hub and ticketing area at the southwest corner of State Pier. The Plan notes a similar opportunity comprising the
northwest corner of State Pier, Tonnesson Park, and the existing Waterfront Visitor Center on Fisherman’s Wharf,
where docking facilities could be improved to adequately support excursion and charter boats and water shuttle
94
services. As described below, such space could be freed up at Fisherman’s Wharf/Tonneson Park if fishing fleet
berthing were expanded at Homer’s and Leonard’s Wharves, to better accommodate fishing vessels that are now
95
berthed three or more deep.
Private Recreational Vessels. New Bedford-Fairhaven was named a top-50 recreational boating harbor by
96
Yachting Magazine in 2012. The Harbor Development Commission operates Pope’s Island Marina, located in
the center of the river on the south side of the Route 6 Bridge and just outside the limits of the DPA. The HDC
conducted a feasibility study of expanding the marina several years ago, concluding that significant expansion
could be undertaken. As of 2013, the Mayor has convened a Recreational Boating Advisory Group. The
recommendations implemented are expected to increase demand for recreational berths at Pope’s Island Marina
and result in an increase in recreational boaters visiting downtown New Bedford. Increased demand at Pope’s
Island, and its eventual expansion, would generate additional net income for the HDC, which retains all such
revenues for use on harbor projects and facilities.
92
Harbor Development Commission, October 2013.
Report to New Bedford Harbor Development Commission on the Feasibility of Attracting Medium Sized Cruise Ships to Visit New Bedford
MA, June 2013. A vessel of 750 feet, carrying about 1,850 passengers, would require a hurricane barrier opening of at least 200 feet.
94
New Bedford/Fairhaven Municipal Harbor Plan, 2010; p. 7-45 to 7-46.
95
Cruise and ferry discussions with City of New Bedford and Harbor Development Commission.
96
Harbor Development Commission, October 2013.
93
November 8, 2013 Draft
36
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
Significance. Historic downtown New Bedford, including the Whaling Museum and other broadly marketed
attractions, is located just across Route 18 from the center of the port, with an enhanced pedestrian connection
created as part of the recent Route 18 improvements. The port also enjoys good highway access and will gain
passenger rail access to Boston and Route 128 when South Coast Rail is implemented. These conditions would
favor a robust ferry, excursion, small cruise, and recreational boating business, or at least the opportunity to grow
and market these services over time—but only if there is sufficient space to accommodate them. The multipurpose upgrade of State Pier and the expansion of commercial fishing dockage (see below) may create the
physical and operational space for waterborne passenger growth. Adding amenities for cruise, ferry, excursion
passengers, and recreational boaters would increase public appreciation of the working waterfront while
97
reconnecting it to downtown restaurants, shops, and museums.
4.5.1.3
Fishing and Fish Processing
As in Gloucester, the condition of the New Bedford fishery reflects the state of the fish stock and its regulatory
management, on the one hand, and the adequacy of dockage and other port infrastructure, on the other. Atlantic
sea scallops, the highest-value species for New Bedford, is a thriving fishery with an established and sustainable
management plan. To promote continued success of this fishery, NOAA approved new management measures in
May 2013. Recent scientific surveys showed remarkably high amounts of young scallops in the Mid-Atlantic, and
the measures were designed to protect these young scallops and thereby maximize scallop harvest in the future
once the scallops are grown. These measures include reductions in quotas for the 2013 fishing year, changes in
the time of year certain access areas such as Georges Bank can be fished, and continued closure of other access
areas in the Mid-Atlantic. While some fishermen may experience reductions in their quota or other limitations,
these short-term sacrifices are intended to yield increased harvest potential and revenue in several years and
98
ensure continued sustainability of the fishery.
The New Bedford fleet is berthed principally at five wharves owned by the City and managed by the Harbor
Development Commission: Fisherman’s Wharf (Pier 3), immediately north of State Pier; and Steamship Wharf,
Coal Pocket Pier, Homer’s Wharf, and Leonard’s Wharf, immediately south of State Pier. There are an
inadequate number of berths for the homeported fleet, exacerbated by vessels coming to New Bedford from other
99
ports, by transients unloading fish in New Bedford, and those seeking shelter during storms. The extension of
Homer’s and Leonard’s Wharves using barges or floats has been recommended since the initial DPA Master Plan
100
in 1999, and it is recommended again in the approved 2010 Municipal Harbor Plan.
Significance. In 2012, NOAA ranked New Bedford as the nation’s top fishing port in landed dollar value for the
101
twelfth consecutive year. As described in detail in the Existing Conditions Report, New Bedford and Fairhaven
have over 1,100 jobs in fishing and over 700 in processing. Given the health and size of the fishery, the
overcrowded dockage at the wharves surrounding State Pier creates operating inefficiencies and limits growth. As
noted above, the expansion of Leonard’s and Homer’s Wharves could also help free up dock space for
commercial excursion vessels, which, based on the performance of that sector in Boston, Gloucester, and Salem,
might find a ready market steps from the historic attractions of downtown. Particularly because it could relieve
both problems, the long-planned extension of Leonard’s and Homer’s Wharves should be advanced.
4.5.1.4
Dredging
The federally authorized navigation channel to New Bedford is presently established at 30 feet. However, the
Northeast Marine Pilots will currently not allow vessels that draw more than 26 feet to enter the port. Vessels
97
Harbor Development Commission, October 2013.
NOAA Fisheries Northeast Regional Office,
http://www.nero.noaa.gov/mediacenter/2013/05/new_management_measures_for_scallops.html.
99
Discussion with Harbor Development Commission.
100
New Bedford/Fairhaven Municipal Harbor Plan, 2010; p. 7-42.
101
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120920/NEWS05/209200352/-1/NEWS.
98
November 8, 2013 Draft
37
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
calling on the port typically have a draft of 25 feet, and in many cases must either wait for high tide or reduce their
load to navigate the channel. It is imperative that the channels be maintained to their federally authorized depth
for the Port of New Bedford to maintain and capture existing and new business.
Any future dredging must be understood in the context of the extraordinary dredging activities conducted in New
Bedford over the last two decades. The massive EPA cleanup of the Acushnet River PCB superfund site, which
involved the construction of the dewatering facility at North Terminal, created a regulatory framework governing all
navigational dredging. Three phases of navigational dredging have removed 200,000 cubic yards of contaminated
102
sediment, disposed of in CAD cells in the lower harbor. In addition, as noted earlier, construction of the South
103
Terminal facility included remediation of nearly a quarter-million cubic yards of contaminated sediment.
4.5.1.5
Offshore Wind
The City and Port of New Bedford have been working for more than five years in preparation for the impact of
offshore wind as a transformational opportunity. In addition to the major capital investment in South Terminal, the
Harbor Development Commission and the New Bedford Economic Development Council (NBEDC) are
developing a strategy for meeting the needs of the offshore wind industry. Recent and ongoing initiatives to
support offshore wind (OSW) in New Bedford include the following:
• An Offshore Wind Industry Advisory Group of industry leaders has been convened by Mayor Mitchell.
• The New Bedford OSW Business and Workforce Development Task Force—a group of more than 40 local
stakeholders—works on strategies and funding opportunities for training and preparedness. The NBEDC,
along with Bristol Community College, obtained a Workforce Competitiveness Trust Fund Grant and a
Pathways out of Poverty Grant to begin the process of preparing students for wind and clean energy jobs.
• A meeting of the heads of all of the Federal Agencies (EPA, EDA, HUD, Home Land Security, Coast Guard,
Army Corps) associated in any way with the development of this sector met in New Bedford on February 20,
2013 at the request of Mayor Mitchell and Congressman Keating, to introduce them to the project and to
explore funding partnerships.
• The City has engaged an international planning firm to assist in scoping the first phase requirements for
urban renewal planning along the waterfront near South Terminal.
• In partnership with Precix and UMass Dartmouth, the City is entering into an agreement with the consultancy
group conducting the national offshore wind study for the Department of Energy, to study the supply chain
opportunities for New Bedford’s current and future businesses.
• In April 2013, the City developed a trade mission to Germany and Denmark, where Mayor Mitchell and
Council President Duarte signed a Sister City Agreement with the Lord Mayor of Cuxhaven.
• The City continues to engage with representatives from Cape Wind, Weeks Marine, and Siemens in
discussions focused on job creation and future investment.
104
Significance. New Bedford’s pursuit of the offshore wind industry represents not only a specialized cargo
opportunity, but on-going participation in wind farm operations and maintenance. Because of its geographic
relationship to Cape Wind and other proposed projects south of Cape Cod, New Bedford has emerged as the
Commonwealth’s candidate in the relationship—potentially both competitive and collaborative—with
102
http://www.epa.gov/region1/superfund/sites/newbedford/2009aprpubmtg.pdf.
The State Enhanced Remedy (SER) is a regulatory tool that the HDC, DEP, and EPA use to perform navigational dredging. This process,
unique to the Port of New Bedford, allows the port and its tenants to streamline the permitting process for dredging because it has the added
benefit of removing PCBs from the harbor bottom. As the EPA moves forward with settlements and the cleanup continues and eventually
concludes, it is important that the port still have the SER tool to complete its dredging projects as long as it addresses legacy contamination.
For a detailed discussion of the Superfund and SER dredging processes, see New Bedford/Fairhaven Municipal Harbor Plan, 2010; pp. 7-4 to
7.16.
104
City of New Bedford Office of Economic Development.
103
November 8, 2013 Draft
38
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
Quonset/Davisville, RI. The state commitment is demonstrated the role of the Massachusetts Clean Energy
Center, a quasi-public corporation chaired by the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs, in funding and
managing the South Terminal construction project.
The recent federal auction of wind development lease rights won by Deepwater Wind represents the start of the
“second” or post-Cape Wind generation of projects. With an indication that both Quonset/Davisville and New
Bedford will participate, New Bedford has expressed an interest in the entire supply chain. As the initial set of
activities listed above suggests, the City recognizes that an offshore wind strategy requires an on-going effort in
business development and workforce development. In addition, looking ahead to the potential for two
simultaneous wind development and manufacturing projects, the City, HDC, and NBEDC recognize that long-term
planning is needed to identify a second terminal with heavy-lift laydown space in proximity to deep water
105
berths.
4.5.2 Landside Access
4.5.2.1
Highway
The Port of New Bedford enjoys excellent access to the Interstate system via I-195, but the local roadway network
connecting I-195 to the waterfronts of both New Bedford and Fairhaven is more congested. In particular, Route 18
(JFK Boulevard), which connects I-195 to the New Bedford port terminals, is a limited-access highway serving the
North Terminal area but becomes an at-grade arterial street in the State Pier area continuing on to South
Terminal. A Route 18 improvement project now in its concluding stages is designed to improve truck access to
the waterfront as well as pedestrian connectivity between the waterfront and downtown.
The Route 6 swing bridge is currently being repaired, a major construction project ensuring that the bridge will
operate properly for the benefit of traffic moving between the New Bedford and Fairhaven waterfronts as well as
vessels entering the lower harbor. As discussed in the Cargo section, a long-term undertaking to replace the
bridge and widen the channel is supported by the City and the MPO.
4.5.2.2
Rail
The Port of New Bedford is served by the New Bedford Line, which the Commonwealth recently purchased from
CSX. Operated by Mass Coastal, a Class III short-haul railroad, the line connects to the CSX system and
provides direct access to the port. There is a 33-acre railyard alongside North Terminal, with an operating spur to
the EPA dewatering facility (which HDC will inherit as a cargo terminal) and a spur in the process of being
upgraded to serve the Maritime Terminal International cold storage facility.
A single-track spur continues beneath the Route 6 Bridge to the base of State Pier, but not further south. The
development of the offshore wind support facility, with its additional capability to handle containers and specialty
cargoes, has raised the issue of extending the spur to South Terminal.
The same line will be used for the New Bedford branch of the South Coast Rail passenger service to Boston, with
New Bedford’s end-of-line station at the “Whale’s Tooth” yard adjoining North Terminal. A near-term benefit of the
South Coast Rail project is a TIGER grant funding the reconstruction, now underway, of three substandard
bridges on the New Bedford Line. The Southeast Massachusetts Regional Transportation Plan recommends track
upgrades to accommodate weight capacity from the current is 263,000 pounds to the industry standard 286,000.
Significance. New Bedford’s direct, active, on-dock rail connection is an exceptional asset, but its value is limited
by the inability of the terminals north of the Route 6 Bridge to accept ships wider than its 95-foot lateral clearance.
One of the reasons to consider extending rail to South Terminal is to create a cargo terminal with the combined
105
Harbor Development Commission, October 2013.
November 8, 2013 Draft
39
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
attributes of on-dock rail and vessel size limited only by the Hurricane Barrier. If North Terminal were accessible
to all vessels entering the harbor, the cost-benefit analysis of bringing rail to South Terminal would change. An
additional consideration in evaluating the rail extension is the impact it would have on the pedestrian connection
between downtown and the State Pier/Fisherman’s Wharf area.
4.5.3 Institutional Context
Ownership and Control. The Harbor Development Commission (HDC) was created by the Legislature in 1957
and is, outside of Massport, the Commonwealth’s only legislatively established port governance agency. Chaired
by the Mayor, HDC is the agency charged with operating all port facilities owned by the City, including North and
South Terminals, the other public wharves, and the Pope Island Marina, and is the port’s principal institutional
106
voice for advocacy and marketing. The Harbormaster functions as an agent of HDC.
State Pier is owned by the Commonwealth through the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). While
DCR retains overall management and maintenance responsibility, the HDC, under agreement with DCR,
manages certain operations and activities, including the Island Ferry Terminal and events such as the
107
Commercial Marine Expo. The HDC has expressed a strong interest in reassessing the current arrangement,
with respect to the suitability of the state park agency serving as steward and operator of the State Pier and the
108
potential for greater day-to-day control by HDC itself.
DPA. In New Bedford, the DPA’s fishing, ferry, cruise, and cargo businesses operate alongside tourism and
recreational uses, creating an experience that resonates with both tourists and the marine workforce. In the City’s
view, the DPA in the central waterfront needs enhanced public access and passenger activity, with amenities
serving not only maritime workers but tourists; residents visiting the waterfront; ferry, cruise, and excursion
passengers; and recreational boaters. The City believes these uses can coexist successfully within the DPA and
Harbor Plan regulations, and that opening the central waterfront to greater public use is both a re-branding
109
opportunity for the downtown and a way to create enhanced appreciation of the working port.
The 2002 New Bedford/Fairhaven Harbor Plan/DPA Master Plan provides (on the New Bedford side) that roughly
85% of the DPA land area will be dedicated to water-dependent-industrial use and 15% to DPA Supportive Uses.
(Counting Fairhaven, the aggregate breakdown is about 80-20.) From 2002-2006, the Plan included an innovative
mechanism called the “Supporting DPA Use Eligibility Credit Program” (“ECP”). This was somewhat like a
Transfer of Development Rights, with “Receiving Zones” paying into an improvement fund that can only be spent
on core DPA uses in “Sending Zones”. This mechanism facilitated the state’s approval to build the proposed
“Oceanarium” (a water-dependent but plainly non-industrial use) in the heart of the DPA. 110 Reinstatement of the
ECP mechanism could create added flexibility to implement the City’s public access concept.
4.5.4 Issues Identified
The principal issues to emerge from this analysis of the Port of New Bedford include:
• The need for short- and longer-term improvements at State Pier and for a strengthened state-City
management partnership at this central facility.
106
http://www.portofnewbedford.org/.
http://www.portofnewbedford.org/hdc/hdc-operations/state-pier.php. The operating agreement between HDC and DCR expired on June 30,
2012 and as of the time of this Memorandum has not been permanently renewed. Cruise ship berthing, previously managed by HDC, was
managed by DCR in 2013.
108
Letter from Executive Director, HDC, to MassDOT, October 9, 2013.
109 For example, seven Friday night summer concerts staged by the City and HDC on State Pier in 2013 attracted 250 to 700 attendees.
110 New Bedford/Fairhaven Harbor Plan, 2002, pp. 11, 13. The Oceanarium ultimately did not go forward for economic reasons.
107
November 8, 2013 Draft
40
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
• With the South Terminal offshore wind support facility under construction, the need to develop New
Bedford’s role in the OSW business, labor, and supply chain markets, and to plan for a future second
terminal capable of handling the long-term heavy lift and storage requirements of the offshore wind industry.
• Strategies for expanding and diversifying New Bedford’s cargo business, optimizing the roles of State Pier,
North Terminal, and Maritime Terminal, Inc., and advancing the concept of the Marine Highway along the
East Coast.
• The need for continued maintenance dredging to restore New Bedford’s navigational channels to their
federally authorized depth of 30 feet.
• The need to expand berthing space for commercial fishing vessels, potentially by extending Leonard’s and
Homer’s Wharves, and in the process to identify space for a more robust commercial excursion business
near the main downtown/waterfront nexus.
• The need to increase public access and use of the waterfront, particularly in the downtown area, consistent
with the port’s maritime needs; to this end, an evaluation by local and state officials of restoring the flexible
“Eligibility Credit Program” to the New Bedford DPA portion of the Harbor Plan.
• A decision on whether to advance the Route 6 Bridge Replacement concept, eliminating the navigational
barrier to North Terminal and the lower harbor.
• A decision on extending rail service onto the dock at State Pier and beyond to the off-shore wind facility at
South Terminal.
• The economic benefits of attracting increased recreational boating and support activity to the New Bedford
and Fairhaven waterfronts.
November 8, 2013 Draft
41
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
4.6 Salem
Figure 10: Salem Study Area
4.6.1 Port Operations
4.6.1.1
Cargo
The Port of Salem’s only cargo activity is the receipt of coal and lignite at Salem Harbor Power Station. There are
no waterside issues, and the operation occurs entirely on Power Station property. In August 2012, it was
announced that Salem Harbor Power Station will be repowered in a transaction that will both maintain its role as
an electric generator and create a major redevelopment opportunity. Footprint Power LLC, which is buying the
plant from Dominion Energy, plans to run the existing coal- and oil-powered plant for two years and then demolish
and replace it with a state-of-the-art, gas-fired plant 630 megawatt plant. The replacement will leave about twothirds of the 63-acre site available for new development; an extensive planning process is underway, framed by a
Task Force established by the legislature and chaired by Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs, with
November 8, 2013 Draft
42
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
participation by the City and several state agencies.
112
fired plant is progressing.
Technical Memorandum #4
111
As of the time of this Memorandum, permitting for the gas-
Significance. With the planned repositioning of the Power Station site, Salem’s deepwater Designated Port Area
will lose its principal cargo function and become available for industrial and passenger-related uses. As explained
in the Passenger Transportation and Institutional sections below, this represents an opportunity to extend the
downtown waterfront and integrate its northern, southern, and landside components.
Figure 11: Salem Power Station in Relation to Key Waterfront Sites
4.6.1.2
Passenger Transportation
As the Power Station phases out the import of coal, passenger transport services—cruise, ferry, excursion, and
private recreational boating—represent Salem’s principal opportunity as a regional port. Planning is focused on
113
two parts of the harbor: Salem Wharf and South River.
Salem Wharf. The City is in the process of implementing the major port expansion project known as Salem
Wharf. This is the site of Salem’s Fast Ferry to Boston and is designed to also accommodate small cruise ships
and larger excursion vessels as well. Located at the foot of Blaney Street off Derby Street, the Wharf site adjoins
the Power Station; the City purchased the property from Dominion Energy after leasing it during the interim phase
of the project. A permanent dock approximately 250 feet in length is under construction. On-shore power will
114
become available in the near future.
111
http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2012/08/06/deal-sell-salem-power-plant-closes-new-gas-plant-and-developmentplanned/2QXaYxH8CEQ9pvciaNISuN/story.html.
112
http://www.salemnews.com/local/x1442581214/initial-State-OK-for-power-plant
113
Private recreational boating is allowed in the non-DPA portions of the harbor, while cruise, ferry, and excursion activities are allowed DPA
uses.
114
Discussion with Kathleen Winn, City of Salem.
November 8, 2013 Draft
43
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
The 250-foot dock, for which extensive intertidal dredging was required, can accommodate small ocean cruise
vessels. A deep-water dock with extended berth length of 800-900 feet will be built in the next phase by
repurposing the Power Station coal pier. This longer dock will accommodate cruise ships carrying up to 2,000
115
passengers. This future phase is not yet funded.
At this time, Salem has not attracted a regularly scheduled cruise business. But the City sees its historic
attractions, many of them a short walk down Derby Street from Salem Wharf, as a natural market for small- to
medium-sized cruise ships serving regional itineraries. As the Wharf project advances, marketing Salem as a
cruise port, and as part of a cluster of historic cruise ports in Massachusetts and New England, becomes a
priority.
Salem Wharf includes a 140-space parking lot used primarily by ferry passengers; the lot sometimes fills on
weekends. Cruise parking demand will not become significant unless Salem becomes a home port. The next
phase of the port project may include additional parking capacity on the Power Station site.
South River. Salem’s Harbor Plan refers to Salem Wharf and the adjacent Hawthorn Cove Marina as the “North
Commercial Waterfront”. The “South Commercial Waterfront” consists of Pickering Wharf on the seaward side of
the Congress Street Bridge and the South River Basin, a 750 foot-long granite-faced inlet jutting toward
downtown on the landward side of the Congress Street Bridge. The City has completed a Harborwalk along the
west and south sides of the inlet, but its long-term plans call for the watersheet to become a small boat
destination. Among the recommendations are:
• provide floats along the both sides of the South River with capacity for at least 50 small boats, with a dinghy
dock for local recreational boaters, visiting vessels at nearby moorings, or transient boaters in the harbor;
• Add a floating performance barge on South River next to a new park.
This program requires dredging the basin to 6.0 feet and the South River Entrance Channel, which runs between
116
Derby Wharf and Shetland Mills, to 8.0 feet. The City has secured Seaport Bond funding for the design and
permitting, but no funding has been secured for implementation.
Commercial Recreational Vessels. Salem has an existing group of excursion cruises operating from Pickering
Wharf. The opening of Salem Wharf provides an opportunity to expand this business and its substantial economic
impact. An analysis of the market and its potential docking, parking, and access needs would provide a basis for
future planning.
Significance. The ferry, ocean cruise, and commercial excursion markets are at the core of Salem’s port
development opportunity. Salem Wharf will be a highly-visible base of operations, with a deep-water dock capable
of berthing large vessels. The excursion sector, with its strong per passenger impact, will need more dockage and
117
more robust marketing in order to grow. With the North and South Commercial Waterfronts barely a quarter of
a mile apart on Derby Street, the long-term opportunity is to redevelop the southern third of the Power Station in a
way that introduces cruise, ferry, and larger excursions with their supportive commercial uses, while at the same
time creating a destination in the South Commercial Waterfront. These “bookends” would frame the historic
federal wharves and buildings along Derby Street, integrating the cruise waterborne and landside aspects of the
visitor economy.
115
Larger cruise ships requiring longer berths would have to be anchored in the harbor and transfer passengers to smaller vessels that can
dock at shore.
116
City of Salem, Salem Harbor Plan, 2008.
117
Currently, the City’s tourism website lists whale watch, charter, and deep sea fishing vessels and provides a link to their respective
websites. http://www.gloucesterma.com/Attractions.cfm?c=54.
November 8, 2013 Draft
44
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
4.6.1.3
Technical Memorandum #4
Fishing
Salem has a small number of working boats, mostly lobstermen, and no processing industry. As explained in the
Existing Conditions Report, Salem plans to develop Hawthorne Cove, the embayment adjacent to Salem Wharf,
to attract year-round commercial fishermen. This investment would preserve an important port use, albeit at
modest scale, in a location of direct visibility from Salem Wharf and from Derby Street. Funding for this project
has not been secured.
4.6.2 Landside Access
4.6.2.1
Highway
Salem’s DPA and tourist waterfront lack direct highway access to the Interstate system. Route I-95/128 is
accessed via Route 114 through Peabody heading south and west, or Route 1A through Beverly heading north
and east. Route 107 is the principal route to the south, traversing Lynn, Saugus, and Revere to Route 1 and the
Tobin Bridge.
The routes leading directly to the Power Station are Derby Street, the “main street” of the historic waterfront, and
Webb Street, a short residential street connecting to Route 1A. These streets would be hard pressed to
accommodate significant truck traffic or high volumes of visitor traffic and thus represent a constraint in planning
for redevelopment of the Power Station. Transit, particularly of the shuttle and circulator variety, could be
essential. Currently, Salem has a privately owned trolley serving passengers taking the ferry. Shuttle vans could
be used to distribute cruise port-of-call passengers to local destinations in and near downtown. If Salem’s cruise
industry were to expand and offer home port embarkations, landside access would need to be improved.
4.6.2.2
Rail
The Port of Salem does not have direct rail service for freight or passengers. However, Salem’s MBTA commuter
rail station, a half-hour train ride from Boston, is within marginal walking distance, or easy shuttle distance, of
Salem Wharf, South River, and the Derby Street waterfront.
4.6.3 Institutional Context
DPA. In the approved 2008 Salem Harbor Plan/DPA Master Plan, the City proposed, and Secretary Bowles
accepted, an “amplification” that limits uses within the Industrial Port District (the Power Station property in its
entirety) to water-dependent-industry, marine industrial park, and temporary uses (parking, storage, and similar
non-structural uses of 10 years, maximum duration). 118 That is, no commercial Supporting DPA Uses are allowed
in this particular DPA, notwithstanding the general availability of such uses under the DPA Regulations.
The City has indicated in the course of this study that when the Power Station site is redeveloped, and roughly
two-thirds of it becomes available for non-energy generation purposes, the amplification will then be too
restrictive, preventing the development of a district combining cruise, excursion, and ferry activities with
commercial support.
Ownership and Control. Salem has no dedicated port agency and no state pier. The City has acquired the site
of its new Ferry Wharf and owns the South River Basin. The principal external pier owner is the federal
government, which owns Derby, Hatch’s, and Central Wharves, the national historic sites on Derby Street
between Salem Wharf and the South River.
118
An “amplification” is a Harbor Plan provision that is more restrictive than the baseline Chapter 91 requirement. A “marine industrial park” is
a form of DPA Master Plan in which the supporting uses are mostly industrial. City of Salem, Salem Harbor Plan, 2008.
November 8, 2013 Draft
45
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum #4
4.6.4 Issues Identified
The principal issues to emerge from this analysis of the Port of Salem include:
• The need to fund and implement the full Salem Wharf project, including the full-length deepwater berth at the
coal pier, and the resultant opportunity for an historic port cruise marketing strategy.
• The opportunity to expand the excursion sector from Pickering Wharf to Salem Wharf, provided that docking,
access, and parking needs are determined.
• The opportunity to bring small boating activity, both commercial and private, into the South River basin,
which can be integrated as a “place” with both the downtown core and Pickering Wharf—all contingent on
dredging the basin itself.
• Constrained vehicular access via Derby and Webb Streets, and the opportunity to plan for pedestrian and
transit alternatives.
• Evaluating possible modifications to the current DPA limitations on the portion of the Power Station site that
will become available for non-energy, non-cargo development.
November 8, 2013 Draft
46